User talk:Knowledgekid87/Archive3

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


Ocean liner

Hi KK87-- I have reinstated my edit to this article for the reasons stated in the edit summary. A few thoughts:

  • "Less is more"-- we tend to overpunctuate and extraneous commas can go.
  • Use of the definite article before ship names has long been discussed-- "the" is less often used before "USS" or "SS" (and never before "HMS"), and usage on the page was not consistent.
  • We don't need a link to Battle of the Atlantic from ship losses-- liners were lost in the Baltic, Mediterranean, Pacific, and elsewhere. We also should not link steam engine to Brunel.
  • Britannic's loss was mentioned twice; once is enough.

If you disagree with my changes, can we go to the article talk page and work for a solution?

Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Spirited Away#Character page?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spirited Away#Character page?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruption of a Featured Portal

Please do not disrupt a Featured Quality portal on Wikipedia, as you did here, DIFF.

This portal is set up to rotate through multiple selections on its own.

It has been through a portal peer review and featured portal discussion, and was successfully promoted to Featured Quality portal.

Please take further queries to the portal's talk page, at Portal talk:Terrorism.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply: No worries, thank you for your willingness to participate in polite talk page discussion! — Cirt (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

PPG: a PBS Kids show?!

What's all this about the Powerpuff Girls also being a PBS Kids show? Cartoon Network owns the Powerpuff Girls, not PBS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talkcontribs) 20:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I removed the template PBSKids shows from the article which the IP had added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


Two days ago I opened up this formal move request based on the suggestion I initially made at WT:ANIME. As you contributed to the original discussion, your input is welcomed at the new one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for your note/close on the Manning talk page - I've been away from Wikipedia for some time, and appreciate any help brushing up on discussion/etc protocol I can get. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 23:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


Discussion taking place at User talk:Sportfan5000 if you want to join in. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay and thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


"gotton" LOL! Thankes very much. – S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Glossaries and Timelines

I don't know if I am reacting to the fact that I can't understand terminology or terms in some publications or if I just want in-universe context to have a single article where such information can reside. Japanese Wikipedia is often dominated by such terminology, sometimes excessively down to the individual vehicles and weapons used in crime thrillers. What some people view as "encyclopedic" is different from others. Like how I am not a fan of many characters getting stand alone pages, or individual terms and in-universe concepts with exceptions for things like Jutsu (Naruto), simply because those have to meet N/GNG whereas a list only need to be about a notable topic. I hate to break their bubbles, but actually if you applied their N/GNG criteria to the GA on Jutsu, it would fail. You know why? 64 references are to primary material (in-universe only) and 5 are merchandise on Amazon, only 2 (really a 2 page article on IGN) refs are about the "Top Ten Naruto Techniques". Since when is that GNG/N? Our views are pretty different, but I ask you... if you applied their arguments to the Jutsu page... would it be different? Especially since it is on just Jutsu and not all terminology. If I had the books for those and the time to fix the pages with primary sources (in-universe like Naruto) would they still be worthy of AFD? I mull these thoughts around because I see value in such things. I can only work on a few pages at a time, but I wish I could devote my entire attention to fixing such problems, but I wait weeks for my materials - sometimes to fix only a single page. I suppose this is why we don't exactly share the same viewpoints, but thanks for your objectivity at the AFD. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Overlapping move requests

Wouldn't it be cool if I sent Wikipedia into some kind of infinite loop that causes all the servers to blow up, and crashes the encyclopedia? I hope that doesn't happen, even though it would be kind of cool. I didn't see any rule about not having two at once. PLus it's late and I want to go to sleep. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Hi Knowledgekid, I removed your addition of the Daily Mail (which I had just added to the previous section), because if you read the story, they are using Chelsea and she. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained revert/re-hatting of explained unhatting

The section in question was hatted with the following comment/explanation:

These sorts of one-line "I don't like it" threads should be closed off to avoid further drama.

When I clicked on the section to read it I was surprised to find a new (to me) argument, and a sound refutation of it. An IP had claimed that WP was trying to hide the fact that trans people exist. The response to this was outstanding, in my view:

The idea that Wikipedia is trying to protect users from the knowledge that trans people exist is absurd. If that were the case, the article wouldn't even mention the fact that she is trans. — Richard BB 11:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be helpful for others to see it, especially if the main point was made in the section heading. So I explained and justified my hat removal in some detail:

Unhatting because this is not a JDLI discussion, but a sound refuting of an argument others may make. Changing section heading to... "Is Wikipedia's mission to protect users from the knowledge that trans people exist?" [1]

Your edit summary of the revert/re-hatting was short and dismissive[2]: "not helpful".

What's up with that? --B2C 17:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article has been fought on and on for the last few days, I know your points may be valid but the fact remains that the title is not going to be changed. Best save your thoughts for the move discussion in October. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, really didn't expect anyone to dig out that comment. Glad that someone approves, at least. — Richard BB 18:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, the fact that there cannot be a formal RM proposal regarding the title until October in no way explains why you reverted/re-hatted as you did. Last I checked making comments about an article title outside of a formal RM was still allowed on WP. --B2C 18:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've unhatted again[3]. Please do not revert/rehat again without first providing a thorough justification. --B2C 19:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Born2cycle:, I hope you'll reconsider your position here. The last thing we need is people continuing to flood that page with complaints about the title. We all know a new move request will happen in 30 days, and there is a workspace set up to gather evidence for that. Otherwise bemoaning the move in the absence of the ability to actually propose a move is simply use of the talk page as a forum, which it isn't. We're seeing all sorts of threads crop up - now and in the past - that are generally about trans-issues in general - and unfortunately that is not what article talk pages are for. I saw that thread and was about to archive it, then I saw this dispute so decided to hold off. Please reconsider, though, as that thread is going no-where fast.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage

Please be careful not to engage in edit warring. I noticed the question of whether to include Wikipedia coverage on the Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage article has become heated, as in this diff you made. I highly recommend that you discuss the issue on the talk page further and achieve a clear consensus before engaging in any more reverting. I am also including this message on the talk pages of others who have been reverting that content. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I opened up a survey at Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage#Survey on Wikipedia section. Please do share your thoughts there. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Just saw the thing you posted on my wall. Thanks, I guess? I didn't exactly "just join", I've been using this account for months and I have about 150 edits under my belt. I'm not sure why you posted a "welcome to Wikipedia" message on my talk page, but thanks anyways? Gibshamari (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to be friendly *Shrugs* I cant tell how long you have been here as your name appears only in red, and you're welcome =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Hello! Per this, I'm obliged to link you to this. ;) Best wishes, –Quiddity (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

VPP reply

I fail to understand how Adam Cuerden's comments classify as such, but the core matter of whether or not it should even be listed as Wikipedia MOS guideline instead of a Wikiproject MOS suggestion is rather an important distinction. The MOS is not a factor in reaching GA or FA and as poorly written as it is, there is not much in the way of instruction to be had. Kicking this back to the Wikiproject to develop it before making it a guideline is what I am suggesting. Though no Wikiproject owns a page and MOSFILM and MOSTV cover anime and the manga is also covered, do we really need a competing guideline in the first place? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The layout for the pages has been smooth and has worked with our guideline, if we were to make drastic changes who knows how it would effect all of the GA and FA class articles we have. I agree we should kick it back to our project to work on but as for it being a guideline I don't see anything wrong with that as anime as I have been told works different when it comes to It being aired on Tv than it does in the states here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
What is wrong with MOSFILM and MOSTV though? GA and FA pages are most certainly not checked against MOSAM because it doesn't really serve a purpose in its current form. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Because we are also talking about our project being anime and manga not just anime. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
And of WP:MOSFICT? Tokyo Mew Mew is listed under on the MOS page as an example by the way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The guideline we have goes into how to name anime and manga titles, and shows how to use the templates we use on our project, I do not see a reason to get rid of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Im getting some rest, I see at least four other editors though besides me all from the anime/manga project that are in favor of keeping it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you really should read and understand the advice pages as suggested by WAID. It seems you do not understand what is being proposed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the kind barnstar. Your contributions to Manning-related discussions have also been very helpful and have brought out perspectives others had not considered. By seeking consensus and approaching other editors in a civil way I am confident we can reach a satisfactory solution. Thank you again. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your ongoing Manning comments

Re: your ongoing contributions on the Manning talk page, could you please at least stop using he/his/him to describe Manning? It kind of flips the bird to at least the subject and more broadly the trans community with each such usage; there's really no call for that, whatever you think of the person in question. It also suggests that your vigorous campaigning in favour of the BM title was motivated by disdain for her new identity, which I am sure is not the case. Chris Smowton (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Knowledgekid87.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. 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/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

please stop edit warring

see Template:MOS-TRANS, we have an ongoing discussion there, and including the forum language is generally supported. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk back

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Knowledgekid87. You have new messages at Template talk:MOS-TW.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Knowledgekid87, I edited your strikethrough because I believe you meant to strike through the latter portion of the sentence and just leave the "not a forum" language intact. If this was not the case please change it back. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

MOSAM move

I've reverted your move as the page does not really fit as a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DNAU expiration date

Hi there - please discuss the expiration date from the DNAU template on Talk:Bradley Manning, before engaging in any further editing. That way we can all avoid an edit war. (: Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Re:Hurricane Humberto

Anyone with basic knowledge of hurricanes would know that after the system is no longer tropical, it is classified as a post-tropical cyclone. These themselves do not die out and regenerate. If it does die out, it would be reclassified as a tropical depression/storm upon regeneration. There is probably an error in the wording of the source you used. United States Man (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Restored your edit

I've put the MOSAM back to the style guide and you are right about it falling off the VPP, but if discussion starts again we will have to put the disputed back on. The whole matter kinda died off, but nothing really changes except the formality at the top, but since the notability issue also seems to have died down the discussion tag probably isn't necessary for that either. Shall we hold off before trying to write a better style guide or should we move ahead next week? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Lets hold off at least a week, I see Wikipedia:Cosplay images in articles that is a proposed guideline (Which I disagree on as it seems to work fine as an essay). Cosplay images make up a very small part of Wikipedia while anime and manga have a lot more to it. What I would do for WP:MOS-AM is propose what you want done (Proposal 1, proposal 2, ect...) and try to have a consensus with wikiproject anime/manga first before starting an RfC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to watch that cosplay thing, but since Lucia is active in the discussion I probably shouldn't reply. As for MOSAM, it probably is for the best. Though rewriting such a thing is a daunting task. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I had forgotton that Lucia is topic banned from anime/manga when I added the essay and project header for anime/manga on the talkpage for WP:COSPLAY but in either case I feel you should comment. You are going to have to interact with her as she seems to want to edit anime and manga related articles after her ban is up. What I would do even is offer the olive branch on her talkpage and say bygones. I think working together will be hard but it is not impossible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I've done that three times and she wanted me to plead forgiveness and say I was acting in bad faith then when a third party got involved started yelling all caps and repeatedly saying how she hates me, including at ANI. Cosplay is integral and part of the A&M topics, and Lucia knows this, all the cosplay magazines focus on A&M topics including the most popular Cosmodo. For whatever reason, Lucia is the one that has to desire to work together - no amount of talking will change her otherwise. The whole Spira (Final Fantasy) AFD shows a considerable lack of BEFORE and other issues. The article will probably end up at GA when I am done with it, but I still have considerable reservations about working with Lucia even post-topic and interaction ban simply because of the hostility and interactions with other editors in general. I don't like or need drama; I am not on Wikipedia to fight with anyone and its certainly the last thing I want to be doing with my free time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

FAN:dom Con

I'd like to get your opinion, I'm starting to fix the article FAN:dom Con but I've run into a problem. It's hard to determine if this is actually an anime convention or an multigenre convention. overview seems to change per year, and there own website seems to not totally be sure. What is also confusing is the guest list appears to be mostly anime. Esw01407 (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what stuck out at me when I went to their website:
"About FANdom Con:
Located in Pensacola Florida, FANdom Con is a general fandom convention consisting of anime, comics, science fiction, video games, and more."
The wording of general fandom seems to me like it would be multi-genre, comics (Batman, Superman, ect..) do not fall under the anime umbrella, while science fiction is a broad genre. I do know that if a convention pushes its-self primarily as an anime convention it would go under the anime cons list but this does not seem the case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Obi =) A lot of editors put a lot of effort into the process and I feel like it went overall smoothly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Wish this thing would update on the main page"

click on purge

-- (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(More) There's a "purge" link just above the calendar at Portal:Current events. Wikipedia:Purge has some other ways to do it easily. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


I will let you take it there then. United States Man (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 04:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Im tired and don't have it in me to write up a lengthy description of what happened. Have a good night (Or morning depending on where you are) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Myself, I think it is pointless, so I am not going to pursue the matter. Goodnight. United States Man (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree I will just let it be then - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, whenever you work up the energy, be sure to let them know how annoying it is that other editors want to discuss things but you don't wanna because you're tired of it, so you all just decided to edit war over it instead. Let me know how that goes. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 04:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Im not going to argue with you, the discussion had been going on for over a week and two versions of a consensus had been done. So editors had been discussing it, most move requests on Wikipedia take about two weeks and we were not even talking about an article title but a one sentence addition in the lead. Things come to a close sooner or later, I don't always like the results either but go with it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
So take it to ANI. Tell 'em you just decided you'd had enough of the conversation, and nobody should be allowed to talk about it anymore. Do that. Definitely do that. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has been uninvolved in this spat, I will write up a summary for AN/I if that is what the parties wish; however, as it seems that the spat has now stopped, I really see no reason to escalate tensions by taking it to AN/I. I don't think anything has been done or said that necessarily warrants administrative action (yet), so my suggestion to everyone would be to just cool off for a bit. That being said, if y'all want someone uninvolved to write something up, I'll do it. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. "Uninvolved". Okay. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I was completely uninvolved in the closure and ensuing back-and-forth that led to the AN/I and blocking threats, and quite frankly don't care whether it remains open or stays closed. I think it was pretty clear that consensus was established, but I have no problem continuing the discussion. Whether or not the discussion is reopened doesn't matter to me either way. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Not that you even have to be uninvolved. Anyone can go to ANI. It makes no difference to me - I wouldn't even have to bother showing up. Last I checked, "refusing to stop talking about things when other people are tired of talking about them" isn't against the rules. So do it. Don't keep talking about it, just do it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been here 7+ years; I understand that you don't have to be uninvolved to go to AN/I, but when editors' heads get hot (and it seems that that's happened here), sometimes it's best to have a cool head intervene. I'm just putting out an offer to try to help. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

A note

I'm not joking when I said that I feel harassed by the disputes; it has caused me to snipe at you in the midst it. I feel bad about it because you try to help, even now, I do not know what to do. Instead of working together, it seems driving me off the project is the intention. Editing is not enjoyable for me, its hell, and it only gets worse when I divulge my feelings about it. I can't even work on some pages when those artists and people have made a big impact in my life. I am lucky to have met some great people, but the articles will always remain terrible if each and every attempt to do a proper article is met with such hostility and resistance. I may not be on Wiki much longer... its getting to be too much for me. But thanks for your kind words. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You've come up in an ANI discussion

Your interactions with User:ChrisGualtieri have been mentioned in WP:ANI#Erachima harassing me on my talk page. You may wish to make a statement. --erachima talk 14:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

*Sigh*, thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your statement about waiting for a broader consensus, there is a broader consensus and has been one for years: separate articles for anime adaptations are typically unnecessary but may be useful or necessary in exceptional cases. Such cases include Robotech, some theatrically released anime films, Light and Visual Novel adaptations where most editors can only verifiably write about the anime, and a handful of series where the adaptation and the original have sufficient independent coverage from each other that summary style eventually demands separation.
The root of the issue is that Chris takes "may be useful in exceptional cases" to mean "I can fork any article I feel like and everyone who disagrees is in a conspiracy against me." --erachima talk 16:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we need an update on the consensus that has been in place because consensus can change. A solid consensus can be used to settle arguments, saying "well we have a consensus from x ago becomes weak over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we got an update on the consensus following the MOS-AM discussions at WT:MOS-AM and the policy pump: people still endorse and uphold it, so it's valid. At this point Chris is just rapidly death spiraling in the face of disagreement, which is a distressing development because his contributions outside of anime forks seem to be generally useful. --erachima talk 16:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
What we need is to centralize the discussion, so far in places Chris has proposed things but not in one place for a formal discussion. I suggested he place his proposals in a format such as Proposal 1, Proposal 2, Proposal 3, he agreed to do this so I see it as a way to have this thing ended once and for all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ideally he'll catch on and drop it now, more likely either he goes to RfC over the articles or one of the people who he's offending goes to RfCU over him. So, I agree that this likely will go to RfC one way or another, but I'm not exactly fond of encouraging that sort of escalation when it's not yet a foregone conclusion. --erachima talk 17:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
If it is a set in stone as you say it is then I see no reason why one last bit of discussions wouldn't hurt. As a result it would hopefully convince Chris that there is indeed a solid consensus against all of his proposals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You're certainly free to try. If it continues beyond that, of course, the next step is to pursue sanctions. --erachima talk 17:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Im not going to be the one who throws out the proposals Chris is. If after the final decision is posted and arguments still continue, I agree that sanctions should be pursued. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I posted several of the proposals to get the basics down. It makes no sense to do the whole thing when the principals are left undecided. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay and thanks for your understanding =). I will weigh in my opinions tomorrow. (10/7/13 Eastern USA) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
And I found some more good refs for the Gundam matter. I don't have the current Gundam figures, but it was worth 54.5 billion in profits, not sales. I still have to get some more sources to come in, but I need a few Japanese only works to really do it justice. Nothing good comes over to English about this stuff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The proposal will have to wait. I cannot do this while mediation is ongoing. It will only cause more issues and likely prevent the process from starting. I've removed it, since no one replied yet. There is no rush. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Knowledge, now that we've seen Chris's proposals, you have your answer: from his very first sentence Chris shows that he has learned nothing. As I feared, this is pure WP:TEND.
Have fun fighting with Lucia, Chris, you two deserve each other. --erachima talk 05:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding essay and proposed guideline

WP:COSPLAY isn't an essay as it doesn't give any general advice. it's giving specific guideline and wikiproject to use. If the guideline was to be more in lines of a principle and not of rules, than it would be an essay.Lucia Black (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it would currently pass as a guideline so as a starting point figured an essay was a good starting point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
it doesn't work that way because it's not an essay. you just labeled it as such.Lucia Black (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Well what do you propose the page be? It isn't an article but is in wikispace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
i proposed page. as it was once was until you moved it to essay.Lucia Black (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Knowledgekid87. You have new messages at I JethroBT's talk page.
Message added 17:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball (anime)

As you participated in the above AFD, as per the close I have opened up a proper merge discussion at Talk:Dragon Ball and you are welcome to participate.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A plea

We have both agreed to the RFC. This is the end of the conflict. Regardless of the outcome. Could you please rethink your support of the topic bans. Ryulong does far more than I on the maintenance of the article. I've asked for the conflicts to be closed, two ending in whatever Ryulong wants - including the one you brought us to ANI for. Ryulong won't be able to protect the articles from constant hoaxes, vandals and such if topic banned... I recognize that trait makes him more valuable to me.. and if push came to shove, I'd walk away from A&M before letting him take a topic ban. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boston mayoral election, 2013, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Felix Arroyo and Michael Ross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT

I see that you contribute to LGBT-related content. I am not sure if you are familiar with (or even interested in) Wikimedia user groups or thematic organizations, but I thought I would direct you to Wikimedia LGBT at Meta-Wiki. This is a proposed organization that would promote the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities. I just thought I would point you in that direction to take a look when you have a few moments. If you are interested in participating, feel free to indicate your support. Otherwise, keep up the great work here at Wikipedia! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

Hi, I reverted your edit to Chelsea Manning because I thought that it was kind of a necessary detail to add to the caption 'as a soldier'. If you have any questions, please see my talk page. Thanks. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 03:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

About this WP:AN/I discussion

Hi Knowledgekid87.

You asked for someone to step in about personal attacks. I've said my piece, and I stand by what I wrote.

Hell In A Bucket actually made a good point: Wikipedia can be a pretty rough and tumble place at times, and sometimes you just have to put up with it. I don't for one second condone their choice of words about "growing a thicker skin". They may as well ask me to "just get better at maths". I could express strong personal feelings about this whole situation but that might be a violation of WP:CIVIL.

If it's really getting to you, take a break for a while. After all, Wikipedia is just a website.

In summary:

  • No-one is going to get blocked here, at least not by me
  • Wikipedia is just a website. If you do take it personally, maybe it's time for a break.
  • Keep doing what you do so well, Knowledgekid87.

Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I have just decided to let it go, I have retracted my comments and am sorry if I caused any disruption here, I was having an off day. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Respect and homophobic remarks

I was disappointed to read your comment on Jimbo's talk page, but I'm responding to it here, partly to avoid throwing additional distracting fuel on that fire, and partly because I hope that approaching you politely in a slightly 'quieter' environment might make it more likely that you'll hear what I'm saying.

In response to Atlan identifying an IP editor's comments – "...Homosexuals have always judged the entire world through their sore tortured prisms, that's nothing new but they need to get their own wiki or their own pedia, this isn't the homopedia, this is everybody's wikipedia like it or not!" [4], and "...homosexual behaviour is now being actively and vehemently promoted in every country and in my country by a few foreign individuals. I deeply resent anyone suggesting that wikipedia is obliged support this sickness..."[5] – as homophobic, you responded:

"Atlan, every culture is different even though you may disagree you still should respect their POV and they should respect yours." [6]

How would you have felt if the IP had instead been railing against miscegenation (also illegal in many parts of 'his' country – the United States, based on his IP addresses – until recently, and still actively opposed by many of its citizens), blaming its occurrence on a "tortured prism", the influence of a "few foreign individuals", and suggesting they relegate themselves and their "sickness" to a separate Mulattopedia where it won't bother us decent folk? Would you have still told Atlan that the IP's behavior deserved our respect? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to your recent comment in the WP:AN discussion. Doubling down on your TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to the what ifs that is where other stuff exists, each discussion is unique and different. As for the comments made by the IP at the very least there should have been better warnings first. I have seen trolls so why would someone be stupid enough to goto Jimbos talkpage and complain about an image they felt was wrong if it were a troll? Reading the discussion over at WP:AN there are more than 2 editors that feel that something better could have been done including admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


Sato's incredibly minor role in the Gokusen television drama does not mean that the deletion debate is even remotely "anime and manga related".—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Mayo Chiki! chapters may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • url=|title=人気ライトノベル「まよチキ!」から飛び出した!新連載漫画「まよマヨ!」、娘TYPE Vol.14(11月30日発売)よりついにスタート||language=Japanese|date=2010-11-24|accessdate=2013-11-30}}</ref><

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:

Re your message: Yes, I agree, but per WP:INVOLVED, there is nothing I can do about it. You could report them to WP:AN3 so that an uninvolved admin can take appropriate action. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Im too tired I just noticed it now, hopefully the IP will do the right thing or someone else can take the issue over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware of the IP's past history until after Gogo let me know about it; I hadn't read the talk page much at all. Had I known, I think I still would have done the same thing: the guy sounded repentant, and it wasn't a crucial thing (i.e. not some prominent page, not blatant vandalism, etc), so nobody suffered because of the resumed editwarring. Plus, there would have been somewhat less reason to restore (and expand) the block instantly upon the resumption of editwarring, had he waited out the block instead of appealing. That being said, do you disagree with my action? If so, let me know and I'll be happy to discuss the issue, and try to learn from whatever you have to say. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I am saying you did the right thing, the IP had more than enough warnings given to him/her by multiple editors at different times. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know; I get enough complaints sometimes that I really appreciate hearing about it when someone agrees with my actions :-) By the way, you don't need to include "user talk:" in the talkback. The template's default behavior is to link "user talk:" unless you specify some other namespace. Look at this, for example:
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Knowledgekid87. You have new messages at Knowledgekid87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Although you should note that the same is not entirely true at Commons; their template always prepends "user talk:" to what you type, so {{talkback|COM:AN}} (the admin noticeboard) produces a link to "User talk:COM:AN". Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay and thanks for the helpful advice =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Saturday (Rebecca Black song)

Can you show why this song is notable enough for a stand alone article? right now all I see is youtube and itunes references. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

CNET, CTV News, ABC News, The Independent, New York Post, Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, Khaleej Times, Baltimore Sun, Daily Beast, BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, Jezebel, Toronto Sun, PopSugar, Herald Sun. Those are just media outlets I recognize the name of, and know have articles on Wikipedia. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay well then be WP:BOLD then and go ahead =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico

Umm... as far as I'm concerned there are still eight counties in New Mexico that issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court ruling hasn't halted these counties from performing same-sex marriage. Or maybe I missed something... Prcc27 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The law needs to go into effect statewide. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what PRcc27 is referring to, but Knowledgekid, the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling is effective immediately. See Tinmanic (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes I saw that and reverted my edits was mistaken as other outcomes involving the courts took time to finalize. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Utah on map

Knowledgekid87, a Federal Court just declared Utah's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The decision takes effect immediately, and some people have already gotten licenses today, though the decision will likely be appealed.[1] [2] [3]
I have never modified a map; so, I was wondering if you would colour Utah blue on the "Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in the United States" map in the "Same-sex marriage in the United States" article. Thanks.
Wuzzy (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

PPG Dance Pansted.

Hello, I've seen the commercial for the new CGI Powerpuff Girls Special Dance Pantsed, and I'm still a little concerned. Are the Girls' new CGI Designs are going to replace the current picture on the Powerpuff Girls article and the pictures on its List of characters in the Powerpuff Girls section here on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No as the two series are unrelated, the reason why the special is under the Powerpuff Girls is that it has to do with the franchise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I now understand that the Girls' new CGI designs are not going to replace the picture depicting their original designs on the Powerpuff Girls article as well as the ones in its characters section but I'm still worried because:

1. Somebody on another website thinks that the new Powerpuff CGI Special is going to be the pilot episode for a new series.

2. Everybody (except most of us) thinks that the new CGI designs of the Powerpuff Girls are going to take the place of their original ones, on the Powerpuff Girls website on and even in the new Powerpuff Girls comics from IDW Publishing days after the new CGI Powerpuff Girls special airs. Do you think that could happen weeks after the new special premiers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are worried over nothing, you are falling victim to rumors and nothing more, when there starts to be mention in reliable sources such as CN then I would comment but not from what he heard from his cousin's sister's mother's daughter's best friend. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I know, these rumors keep trying to make me sick, menaning they're trying to have me believe the Powerpuff Girls' original designs are expiring. I just hope they're not. Just think of all the future Powerpuff Girls comics from IDW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I greatly understand from you revision from Saturday that there wasn't going to be a Powerpuff Girls reboot series. And on Sunday, I saw on Meanwhile Studios(Troy Little)'s tumblr page that there was a picture depicting the Powerpuff Girls and the Rowdyruff Boys in their original designs, still. The picture is a teaser for the Powerpuff Girls issue #9 from IDW. Not only that, but it gave me some reassurance that the original designs of the Powerpuff Girls isn't going to disapper especially because of IDW, but earlier tonight I was given a bit of a shock. I saw that the Powerpuff Girls' facebook page changed their cover photo as well as their profile picture. And although you and Paper Luigi have told me that the Girls' new designs are not going to replace the pictures of the Girls' original designs on this article, as well as its List of characters in the Powerpuff Girls page on Wikipedia because these articles are about the series and not the CGI speical, what I'm trying to say these days is I'm afraid that the new CGI designs of the Girls will replace their original designs for the ENTIRE FRANCHISE once the new Powerpuff Girls special airs on January 20, 2014. I'm not saying I'm not going to watch the special. It's just that I just can't do without the Powerpuff Girls original designs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that CN wants to promote it so people watch the special I do not see how it is of any big deal. Afterwards I am sure the page will go back to normal. Did you see if CN had anything special up for the 10th ANV of the Powerpuff Girls on their facebook page? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not see anything about the Powerpuff Girls' 10th anniversary on their facebook Page. I also saw that the previous cover page was posted on March 30, 2012, then it was replaced a day later, then on April 29, this year, it came back. I guess this is the second time it was replaced. Like you said, a few days, that cover photo will go back to normal. I'm just worried that the Girls' new designs will replace the original ones for the whole franchise itself.

Harold Camping predicted that the world would end in 2011 based on evidence he thought he had, my point is unless it is certain to happen and they come out and say "Yes we are making a new franchise" we cant really do much about anything. In the case of the world ending well good thing there was not a certain factor to that as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess that makes some sense. And I do realize one thing... from what you sent me, that just because the Powerpuff Girls, or any other comic/cartoon star we grew up with has new CGI designs, does not mean their original ones are going to disappear forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Recently in the middle of the night, I just saw the 4-minute sneak peek of the new CGI Powerpuff Girls special Dance Pantsed. And although I now know that we're not changing the designs here on this article and on its List of characters in the Powerpuff Girls section on Wikipedia the even after the new CGI animated special airs, I'm afraid that:

1. The current intro and title of the entire series will be replaced with the ones I saw in the sneak peek. 2. Although your recent edit said there wasn't going to be a reboot the the series CartoonNetworkEps just posted the sneak peek of the new Powerpuff Girls special and its info made me believe there could be a series reboot.

But today I saw the commercial for the Girls' five hour marathon this upcoming Sunday, and I saw what happened to the Powerpuff Girls game, "Attack of the Puppy-bots". It was remade in the girls' CGI design from the new one-off special. What if this is a sign that this could be the last time we'll ever see the Powerpuff Girls in their original designs and they'll change the PPG website?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Until it is confirmed by reliable sources I am not going to worry about it. The five hour marathon is going to be the original series leading up to the new special. The reason why you are seeing so much about it is to get people to watch the new special episode. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
As for the game Attack of the puppy bots they are trying to promote the new episode and get people interested in watching it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw the Powerpuff Girls new CGI designs last night and I knew there wasn't going to be a new series after all. But this morning I saw that the Powerpuff Girls cover photo on their facebook page still remains the same but without the byline. Does this mean they'll never change it back after the special's three encores before it rolls out internationally after this month ends?

Powerpuff Girls Segments

Why do I need to have a source for how many segments the Powerpuff Girls has? None of the other cartoons do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camcorn2 (talkcontribs) 01:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If this counts as WP:OR, then it should for a lot of other cartoons that do this.--Camcorn2 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. But does something need to be sourced if the source is Wikipedia itself? Because by looking at the episode lists for most western animated series, episodes usually have 2-3 segments, which is what everyone apparently calls them. Also, episodes that only have a single story in them are counted as one segment. I believe this is true because this is how it's been on Spongebob Squarepants for years now and it is a protected page and doesn't have a source for it. If it needed to have a source, this would have been removed a long time ago. So, by this logic, I should not need a source to say that Powerpuff Girls has 136 segments, neither should any other cartoon. The only exceptions are the bizarre way that newer Cartoon Network show episodes are counted, in which 11 minutes is now a full episode. But, there was a source for this (the production codes) and that they actually say it on commercials and DVDs.--Camcorn2 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


Lucia's behavior is constantly disruptive and that's why I stated that the new discussion was disruptive. Sven's RFC said it would be case-by-case, Lucia is ignoring that and Huon was correct in pointing it out. Secondly, the consensus was a wider community RFC on Dragon Ball and it said there was a 'clear consensus not to merge. Making new discussions when no one wants to split the articles is actually part of WP:DE. I'm ignoring her, but its bad that every single month she does something like this, like clockwork. Its been 7 months straight. I'm frankly sick of it and I am stressed out because of all the disruption it causes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The fault might be me, as I was the first to post and treated the discussion like a possible merger when Lucia could have had something else in mind. Anyways I do not think DBZ will be merged but Lucia does have a point on future possible splits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Boku No Ohime Sama

Hello Knowledgekid87. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Boku No Ohime Sama, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Self-published is not the same as made up. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

South Sudan

As you are listed on the wikiproject page for South Sudan as a member, I was thus wondering if you are interested in collaborating on a page together? There is more info on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_South_Sudan#Agricultural_page?Lihaas (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


Re Same-Sex marriage is not recognized by the state of Utah so while the marriages may be valid to the Federal government they are not in the state of Utah overall. That is just not correct. The federal judge ruled that the State of Utah must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize them and they did so for a brief period until SCOTUS put a temporary halt to them so the appeals court can hear the appeal(without ruling on the merits of the original ruling). I suggest further discussion take place on the template talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The 1,300 marriages previously preformed right now are not legal in the state of Utah [2]. So while the couples may get federal benefits they will not get state state benefits. Seeing that the SSM in the United States article has Utah in the red banning same-sex marriage I feel that the inclusion of Utah on the template is misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The State of Utah must still recognize the ones that were performed before SCOTUS ruled as that was the last court ruling on the merits. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Take it there if you want, as far as I have read though the status is a legal limbo, no new marriages can be preformed in Utah at the moment so placing Utah down on a template titled "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships" again is misleading as much as we want it to be true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

2014 North American cold wave

For anyone wanting to research "Winter Storm Hercules", it is necessary to prove that the storm referred to is the one designated as such by The Weather Channel. The events in the source match the ones that were also covered in the section of the article. And I was advised by someone who removed the storm from Hercules (disambiguation) that I should include a link to the article about The Weather Channel designation of storms, which I did.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Opinion Sought

Hi KK87 We have both worked on the Ocean Liner List in the past and I am in need of a second opinion on a new article that landed on my NPP list. The article Manjula Peiris seems rather promotional to me and I am having a hard time swallowing notability here. But there are three references from what appears to be mainstream press coverage. Most are short and they are worded in a highly biased manner. And the awards also strike me as silly. But before hitting this with a PROD I thought I'd get a 2nd opinion. If you get a minute and could take a look I'd appreciate it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I would merge the content to List of astrologers place it under his name, and redirect the wikilink. If no additional sources can be found then I do not think the article is good for a stand alone quite yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Pinus strobus -> Eastern White Pine move undone

Per WP:FLORA, most plants are listed under their latin names, not english common names. To make the changes you requested, you must discuss it first. Famartin (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Merging Mai Hime/Otome characters

I've noticed your note at Natsuki Kuga. I am prodding all remaining bios, as I believe not a single character from the series is notable. I'd encourage you to look into finishing the merging in the near future. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing this :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Welcome ^-^ Sorry I had kind of left it on the backburner for awhile and forgot about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

2014 L'Isle-Verte Nursing Home fire

Please refrain from edit warring, as you are currently doing at 2014 L'Isle-Verte Nursing Home fire. You have repeatedly re-posted the same {{notability}} tag after it was removed by multiple editors and are dangerously close to WP:3RR. If you wish to discuss this issue, please take it to the article's talk page. K7L (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Breaking WP:3RR is when you make a 4th revert, I agree though to take it to the talkpage but see that nothing has been done after a simple request that sources be added (Seeing I added the notability tag it is up to the editor that contests it to disprove the notion) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep a look out

Hello Knowledgekid87, I came over to ask you to take a look at my insertion of Bieber's various legal troubles (not controversy!) up to his arrest. I am sure my edit will require your upcoming support, but please do not break the rules / edit war while you support it. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 09:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I also started a new section on the talk page regarding my edit. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Knowledgekid87, I would like to hear your opinion regarding the new (and trimmed) "legal troubles" paragraph at Bieber's talk page? I have colored the words purple. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage colors

Hey, would you mind stopping by the talk page for Public Opinion of Same-sex Marriage in the US, so there can be a discussion of the new color scheme you have put in? I feel like that would be better than this back-and-forth editing. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I started one on the talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. I'm sorry. Missed it by about 10 minutes. Got distracted when writing to you! Sorry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddybrabantio (talkcontribs) 00:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Hi Knowledgekid87, I believe you previously reported IP to AN/I, but nothing came from it. I have re-reported the user, so if you have any input or just wanna gripe, the report is (for now) here: WP:ANI#Disruptive editing from Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I have replied. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect editing on Public Opinion of SSM page. Please stop.

knowledgekid87, please stop editing the chart regarding the states. Your explanation that pink color signifies that a greater amount oppose SSM is inaccurate. For example, Florida, Iowa and Montana all have a plurality favoring SSM. Also, labeling a poll which shows 52% in favor and 42% opposed (New Mexico) as "divided" is simply not correct. You need to read the polls that are cited. Otherwise, your edits are harmful to the page. The color coding is for the level of support. For example 30%-39% is pink, 40-49% is gray, 50-59% is light blue, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michiganb2323 (talkcontribs) 08:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls- a 20-year-old-franchise?!

Hello, I read an article about whether or not a sexualized cover for Powerpuff Girls issue #6 from IDW should be replaced or not. But then I saw that the Powerpuff Girls is a 20-year-old franchise when it actually came about on November 18, 1998! Do you think that makes any sense at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talkcontribs) 16:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well Craig McCracken did first show the Powerpuff Girls (Then called Whoopass stew) at the Spike and Mike's Sick and Twisted Festival of Animation in 1994. So yes one could argue that the show had it's origins 20 years ago but not yet as a franchise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

All these years everybody all over the Internet strongly believed that the PPG series ended in 2005, but I guess that they were wrong, ans the show stopped playing on Cartoon Network in 2005 after the last episode aired in 2004, were they? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talkcontribs)

I dont know, the airdates have so many problems with sourcing as it is itunes has episodes with dates from 2005 in like season 3. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I just saw the trailer and articles for the new Powerpuff Girls game for Steam: Defenders of Townsville. I'm anxious again, because they used the Powerpuff Girls' modern CGI designs from the Dance Pantsed special but, fortunately the also provided the choosing of Girls' famous classic/original designs we all love. Everyone is going with classic but someone believes that the Powerpuff Girls original designs should disappear and be replaced with the modern/new designs from the one-off Dance Pantsed special- even as the current look for the rest of the franchise just because Craig McCracken in no longer involved with the Powerpuff Girls anymore. It's like the Powerpuff Girls original designs don't even exist anymore! I was checking the Powerpuff Girls website on every single day before and after the Powerpuff Girls Special Dance Pantsed aired on January 20, 2014 every single day, its homepage, the backgrounds pictures in its games and characters section, even the green rectangle at the bottom of the video index section- all stayed the same, despite the remaking of Atrack of the Puppybots and they added three new clips from the Dance Pantsed special in its video section. Some people who think that need to see how much IDW Publishing is still using the Powerpuff Girls original designs. I just don't know which of the Powerpuff Girls' designs is the current look of the franchise anymore. Zboogie604 (talkcontribs) — Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Moon

i've been taking a closer look for a while (although have not touched it due to dumb bad-faith allegations). And i think it would be in our best interest to rework Sailor Moon (English adaptations).

Also, i'm currently working on articles such as Trigun and other articles that are a mess. so maybe if you could help me on a couple other articles, i would be able to help more with Sailor Moon much more effectively.

Plus the current discussion isn't going anywhere. i might have to make another RfC about it.Lucia Black (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well seeing you know more about Sailor Moon than me yes I think a rework would be best. Okay I will look at the articles you have been working on as well. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD discussion

At your convenience could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Dranias. Am I missing something here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No you are not missing anything, the article should be deleted, what you are seeing is a possible WP:COI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. When I get heated pushback on an AfD nom I try to get a second opinion from one or two editors whose opinions I respect in case I am pulling the trigger too quickly. Sometimes I miss things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem =) In the future though you can add the discussion to deletion projects by adding something like this :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga|list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions]]. ~~~~</small> A complete list can be found here: [7]. Linking to other wikiprojects will help get the word out to projects you want to inform. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion of same-sex marriage by state

I have reinstated the state polls (except for the estimations) because they give a general understanding of the public opinion for each state polled. Yes it's not perfect nor does it provide an average but unless you or someone else wants to take the time to make a table representing an average, please refrain from removing them. (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Moka Akashiya page needs reorg

Thanks for chiming in on Moka Akashiya page. I've removed the merge request, and the notability tag, and have added the chapter/episode reference table, but will need help in majorly reorganizing the section's text so that it resembles character good articles such as with Belldandy. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Knowledgekid87, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Knowledgekid87, sorry to bother you again about Bieber. Unfortunately, only 5 of the 16 editors who posted their opinion in the General survey part of Bieber's RfC posted again in the point-by-point survey. Progress simply isn't made - could you help to post in the responses to above points subsection to move it forward? Thank you very much. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Of possible interest

You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama. The argument being advanced by the retentionists is that state branches of minor national political parties have inherent notability as long as they were ever on the ballot in that state. I think this could set a very unfortunate precedent that will greatly weaken the ability to remove non-notable articles of an obviously promotional nature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Powerpuff Girls Airdates

The sixth season of The Powerpuff Girls aired entirely in 2004. The references to the air dates of these episodes even say that they all aired in 2004. Camcorn2 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If you look I changed things to status Quo, the episode airdates all show 2004 =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand... all these years I grew up watching all the good shows on Cartoon Network from the mid-1990s through the 2000s including Dexter's Lab, Codename: Kids Next Door and The Powerpuff Girls were original Cartoon Network shows that have pilot shorts from the What A Cartoon! Show. And I knew that it aired pilot shorts for these Cartoon Network shows, but now I realize that they're just mere spin-offs of the What A Cartoon! Show, let alone spin-offs of their own pilot shorts, rather than just original series in which these shorts of Johnny Bravo, Cow and Chicken, Billy and Mandy, Dexter's Lab, Codename: Kids Next Door and The Powerpuff Girls became pilots for. Because of this, I don't even know who If these Cartoon Network shows I listed above are original series, or spin-offs anymore. - contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talkcontribs) 16:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Winter_storm_naming


can you please clarify for me who is on each side of the stipulated controversy around Winter_storm_naming? I do not understand that there is an actual debate. It seems that there was a brief PR dust-up.

so for the controversy in question, I am wondering:

  • who is on each side of issue?
  • what are the positions of the parties on each side?
  • what is the status quo with this issue? (who is winning by default right now, until something changes?)

with these answered, I'm sure we'll all understand the controversy better. thanks. T-303 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014 North American winter storm

Maybe I'm using the outdated template incorrectly, but I just wanted to call attention to the lack of detailed information about what has already happened. I have a lot of other stuff to do and I'd really like others, especially others who can do it better, to help with that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your revision on Rebecca Black

I noticed that you undid this revision by me, stating:

"This youtube was not made by Rebecca, the react videos also exist for her one on Friday and My Moment."

In the YouTubers react edition for her song Saturday, Rebecca Black actually appears in the video, as one of the YouTubers reacting to the video. I gave you this message because I do not want to engage in edit warring. I was wondering if I could rewrite the info back into the article with your consent, since you performed the revert. Thank you for your time. |CanadianDude1| 18:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please respond to this comment. |CanadianDude1| 02:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry late reply, given that she makes a cameo in a video she did not make I still would not consider it notable. has it received any reliable third party coverage for inclusion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage Public Opinion Map

It looks like most people are in favor of Proposal 2. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I know but as I have said I have no knowledge on how to construct a new map, a consensus is in place it just needs to be put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Will this do..? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in USA by state

  Recent polls or ballot votes that show a majority of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls that show a plurality of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls that show a plurality of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls or ballot votes that show a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  No recent poll data.
Yes feel free to add it and thanks! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
A majority is more than half. That is the widely accepted definition of the word.
A plurality is less than half a majority but the most out of all other options. This is usually how the word is defined. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that some of the states are missing from the table... They should be added IMO. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

need help with Rosario + Vampire character list

Hi, I was wondering if you could spare some time to review List of Rosario + Vampire characters and tag any statements that give off some editorializing, WP:SYNTH or WP:OR type of tone. I'm afraid I've spent too much time trimming and referencing the article to see things objectively. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage table Page 55. (Add the Strongly favor with favor). --Prcc27 (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That is WP:OR though (WP:SYNTH), how do you know that the strongly favor does not make up in part of the ones in favor? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Because in some of the states the strongly favor is a larger percentage than favor. In other states it is not. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

third party inline tag on 2014 Russian military intervention...

Re: [8]. Is there a misunderstanding here? It's exactly because NY Times is a major news source that the "third-party" inline tag is inappropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for that. Happy editing! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem, thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Saw your PROD...

... and undid it before I noticed your other change. I've reverted myself. Have a great day, and I'm sorry if my quick edit and revert caused any confusion. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 02:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Its okay, and yeah I figured to get rid of the corporations, per WP:DIR, im for SSM but at the rate that list is going pretty soon we would be including baseball teams. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

just small advice

probably would've been best to close WP:ANIME's as WP:JAPAN actually affects the MOS (for the sake of devil's advocacy). Lucia Black (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I went with the older timestamp and the discussion is still visible to wikiproject Japan, maybe start an RfC on how the MOS can be changed to reflect other's POV as well as yours? Don't get me wrong I love the current guide for the layout but I have been seeing a-lot of arguments around the MOS and feel it should be updated or at the very least have editors throw their ideas for it forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Personally, i think we need a more finite MOS. I dont have any problem with updating the MOS, so long as that we are all in agreement with what it says or at least follow through with it regardless if we agree. Lucia Black (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding map striping discussion

Hello, you participated in the discussion at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Proposal_1_.28Mark_Nevada.2C_Colorado.2C_and_Oregon_medium_blue.29. I was for the sake of formality (and to help the eventual RfC-closer), if can you re-register your opinion in the RfC section. Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

States with limited recognition

The WP:BURDEN is on you to establish a WP:CONSENSUS for these controversial changes, not on me to disprove them. Please discuss the proposed changes on the talk page rather than repeatedly adding it without consensus. TDL (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Knowledgekid87. At your convenience could you take a look at Legendz. I recall that you are involved in the Anime and Manga project as well as having a personal interest in the subject so you may have a better grasp of what this is all about. To my non-Anime eye, the article looks like a train wreck on steroids and I am trying to resist the temptation to send it to AfD. Maybe you see something I don't or can help get it up to snuff. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The user Owner Ming will not stop inserting blatantly POV material on the 2014 Crimean crisis article

You provided a warning to Owner Ming previously. Owner Ming has repeatedly inserted blatantly POV material into the 2014 Crimean crisis article. The edit history of the article shows this behaviour and other users having to delete the POV alterations to the article. Owner Ming has been warned to stop doing this multiple times in the edit history by multiple users and on the talk page of the article. It seems clear that Owner Ming is here for the wrong intentions as the user refuses to uphold NPOV after being repeatedly advised to do so. I think this user needs to be blocked from editing articles related to this crisis.-- (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Placement of the NOTFORUM header

Change on 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine

Well, your chamge consists in just one space. Beinge sujective here, I agree that Crimea should belong to Russia, and Donetsk, along with Lugansk, should belong to Ukraine though within a more inclusive regime that wouldn't be repressive against eitheir Russians or Russian speaking Ukrainian people. Bebcause in Crimea Russians are indeed the majority of the people and in Donetsk and Lugansk Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians are the majoriry, and in Odessa, Zaporizzhia (particularly in these two ones), Kharkhiv, Mikolayv, Kherson and Dnvpropetrovsk, Russian speaking speaking people are a huge portion of the population, and the Partliament of Ukraine wanted to deprive them from their rights like the Turkish authorities also tried to do it for ages concerning to the Kurdish language and finally, thanks to Erdogan (actually!), the Kurdish language was recognized as a regional language in Diyarbakir, Sanliurfa, Batman, and a lot of other regions. And that led to a decrease in separatist terrorism inside Turkey and a peaceful process. Erdogan is not a popular guy, but it won't take a popular maybe it won't take a popular guy to bring peace between Ukrainians. Not Yanukuvich, but neither a puppet of Merkel or Washington.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2014 (WEST - Lisbon Time)

Heya, so I don't remember the proper style order for headers on talk pages hence my placement. I also put it up at the top though because how few people would bother to read the whole mess of headers on that page. (A lot of people would probably ignore it at the top as well, because they simply don't care, of course.) CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Take a bow kid

You are famous. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem Thanks! lol. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Another move request regarding Ukraine and Crimea

Hello, you participated in a previous move request regarding Crimea and Ukraine, so I thought you might be interested in this new request that is intended to address objections to the previous one. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

About Republic of Crimea

Hello dear editor, there are some discussions about Republic of Crimea article. You can find it here: . Please, if you have time join and discuss, because I think the very first sentence of the article is veru wrongful. Thanks in advance. (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Exclusion vs suspension in G8

Well, then we have a discrepancy between the English version and the Spanish wikipedia. In any case, it is clear that no one can "suspend" Russia of an informal organization. At best, refusing to meet with them. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtropoSGI (talkcontribs) 03:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Interview request

Hi Knowledgekid87,

I'm a PhD student and long-time Wikipedian studying breaking news articles on Wikipedia (you can find more about me and my work on my user page). I'm working on a new paper about the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 article and would love to talk to you in general about your wiki work and about sources and references in particular. We're testing out a new methodology for visualizing a user's sources over time and will show you some network diagrams of all the sources and the ones you added in particular as a way to discuss source practice.

Do you think you could spare 30 minutes over Skype next week - preferably Wednesday or Thursday? I'm in Oxford (GMT). Let me know when is good?

Looking forward to chatting!

Best, Heather --hfordsa (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

As I mentioned at Talk:2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, I'd like to start a new summary article to deal with the vast scope of the Ukrainian crisis, and direct people to the appropriate places. I've started such a draft at Draft:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and could use your valuable help in getting it up to snuff. Please do assist in that regard. I've given my proposal more detail at the pro-Russian protests article talk page. RGloucester 20:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(Undid revision 603538616 by (talk)How is it POV?:)

I have answered why I consider it as a POV image there > Talk:2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine#Blinking POV image. Check it and answer. Thanks. -- (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment

Hey Knowledgekid87. Is it alright if you take a look at some articles up for assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Requests for assessment? Thank you and happy editing. 05:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure I will see what I can do =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


I did not expect to find you editing the Great Captain Island Light or other articles in my quiet little realm. You've been to the light before? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No but have read about it as it was listed on the most endangered lighthouses. The nearest one I have been close to was Orient Point Light and the most distant West Quoddy Head Light. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I really want to go, but I am too far away. Maybe someday though, the addition you made seemed to be contrary to my source, but the light was installed in Nov 2009, but not "lit" until 2012. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The lighthouse is now at GAN though. Vastly improved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes im happy to see this one get fixed up =) I have a book that mentioned it and saw that people at one time were vandalizing it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Looks like I can no longer edit the SSM in Us public opinion map. Can you do it? Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Why cant you? I cant do it either I do not know how. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not sure. It just says I can't overwrite the file anymore: I think I've been banned, because it's just that file that it says that on. If you want, I can give you the file to upload? Give you a dropbox link to the svg or something. Also, Missouri should actually be pink because there is technically is a plurality in opposition (47%). The poll does say that 16% are unsure, which makes me question its validity, but. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk referendum article

There is a deletion discussion going on at the Donetsk referendum page --Львівське (говорити) 18:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

Hi Knowledgekid87, I'm still panting ;) but the merge is done. I didn't get involved in the discussion because in the end I agree with you; if no clear evidence of Russian military presence in Ukraine is confirmed by a reliable, third-party source, then the Donbass uprising is off topic. Another reason to have the text removed is WP:LIMIT; the article had become too long to read. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Use your brain

I didn't blame Wikipedia or " someone else for something outlandish ",right there by defending those who OPENLY insult victims you show your bias .But don't worry,i will not waste my time on wiki-trolls,.... i mean whats next - evil Jews killed nazis in Auschwitz because couple of wiki editors say so ? Good job ... btw let me tell you a story - in Croatia minister of education openly said to public not to use Cro-wiki because Croatian fascists infiltrated their wiki and they are using it to promote their point of view like a historical fact,i see same thing will happen here .Now continue mocking those who burned alive by saying " they light themselves up " ... i wish you the same thing,and please feel free to ban me,i have absolutely no interest on this site anymore . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)