Sign your posts with ~~~~ so I know who I'm talking to.
I'll probably respond on your talk page unless you say otherwise, so that you immediately know when I've responded. To save us both time, though, I won't bother if my reply amounts to "You're welcome".
Please do not remove messages, including your own, unless they are clearly vandalism.
Please do not use {{talkback}}. If you can't be bothered to actually type or copy your response here, then don't, I'll check your talk page eventually.
Be nice. If you rant and rave at me, I'm probably not going to give a damn. A more polite response will get a much better response in turn.
If you are here asking for help, please read the Very Frequently Asked Questions first. Chances are, it'll save a lot of time. I'll be glad to help you out either way, though, so feel free to leave a message.
Re: Category...: If you insist on taking the category off, then consider putting under a category like Comics-related lists or some subcategory of Animation.... Wikipedia definitions of "film" and "TV" are fairly loose. The series' TV-style episode/season organization appeared to make a close enough fit by that logic. Anyway, the list needs a category because it is back on one of the the Uncategorized pages lists, where I found it last time. • Gene93k (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
correction with apologies for above: I misunderstood the situation. Anyhow, I put the "Comics-related lists" category on since it is a webcomic-related list. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To stop vandalism you have to be sure not to cause vandalism. Adding words like "hoary" and blanking large swaths of article pages is not the way to do it. You can discuss issues with content on the articles talk page which is likely to be the fasted and most efficient way to resolve content disputes. Knowledgeum (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! PeterSymonds(talk)23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To make test changes or to test out edits you should use the Wikipedia SandBox (Located [here]. Otherwise once you click save page any unconstructive edits can be reverted. Knowledgeum (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and by the way Im sorry for leaving rude messages on your page. I didn know how to do "talk"
Sumimasen Knowledgeum-san ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.228.183 (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the recent edit I made to the entry "manbag" unconstructive? You write that it "appears" to be unconstructive but you don't explain how. What I'm stating is a fact because if you distill the conversations on the internet about the term, you will notice that there is an issue over masculinity which is why in the U.S. men don't call their bags "purses" or "hand bags" but rather "MAN bags".
Take a look at these links and pay close attention to the discourse being used:
Notice how over and over again there is a fear of contamination of masculinity from femininity. I gather such high level analysis is not something you do?--71.146.16.29 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My appologies, I have reverted the revision and removed the message from your talk page. Might I suggest you post this information aswell in the articles talk page so others may also be informed? Again appologies on the misunderstanding. Knowledgeum (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on the editing features of Wiki so would you like to make that inclusion? I'm already struggling with knowing how to put references and I'll stick to that for now. I'm making two more references to what I wrote on "manbag" --71.146.16.29 (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page works the exact same way an article page does. At the top of the article where you see Edit, you should also see Discussion, on that page you can edit just as you do to an article and add any important information, or discuss changes or issues with the article. Knowledgeum (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm just getting used to the lupin avt, and I must say, it must be this slower connection off of WiFi that is preventing me from making any of the reverts because your username keeps coming up! lol Keep up the good work. - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs10:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my current ISP is only giving me a 10D/1U connection, I would normaly be asleep now but... (don't tell anyone) ...people be vandalizing the wiki pages... Knowledgeum (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can you please alert moderators who are not pro indian and anti islamic or anti pakistan (like yourself) to deal with this issue you seem to have a hatred for pakistan why?
I don't think its me that has the hatred for Pakistan, I think its you that has the hatred for India. As such I have requested protection for the Taxila Article again and requested you be banned for making racist remarks in your edit summary. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am well aware fo the ip vandalism by this user. I have already reported the user several times but as it is an anon user the ip adress changes every few weeks. THe same user is presently doing the same in the Taxila article which is where I origionaly found this user. I would recommend you request protection for your pages. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Report the user and request protection on the pages he is presently vandalizing at WP:RFPP As a new user he still wont be able to edit the already protected pages, or any new ones that are protected. Knowledgeum (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (see Taxila). Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Though you have not violated 3RR, if you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I've blocked the bothersome IP for 72 hours. Happyme22 (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that there were spoilers on the animal crossing page. what's wrong with that? I think I am doing people a service by nicely informing them that there may be spoiler material in this article, which there was. Some people don't like game ruiners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.189.245 (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should read wikipedia policy. As per Wikipedia:Spoiler "Articles on the Internet sometimes feature a "spoiler warning" to alert readers to spoilers in the text, which they may then choose to avoid reading. Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. However, since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warning are largely considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the Content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." Knowledgeum (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently checked the logs of my talk page having been extremely inactive for a while (And sadly probably will be for a bit more) and noticed that on July 26 you reverted some vandalism
Rangeblocks really are a last resort and we try to keep them as small as possible to reduce the collateral damage to other editors. It looks like those IP addresses are already blocked directly, in any event. If you see any more, post them on User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat, taking care to keep the IP addresses in order and separated by range as I have them now. Don't bother to tell me directly when you do so, I'll be notified immediately when the page changes. Hersfold(t/a/c)22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86.153.130.184 is a pro pakistani vandalizing articles. another user claimed he is a sock of a user called Nangparbat. it is true. please see [1] and [2]. help please. he is inserting pakistani argument everywhere n remove indian ones. he write administered near kashmir (india) n removes for pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.31.145 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as the origional edit was only made to place an attack into the edit summary and not contribute anything to the article itself, I don't see how leaving personal attacks on other contributors should stay. Knowledgeum : Talk 22:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Knowledgeum - I don't really object to this, but I thought I should clarify that the major reason I reverted Chain of Flowers' earlier edit was the unsubstantiated allegation he made against Tim Buckley. While I don't think the comments you removed are especially helpful (though they do provide some clarification on Wikipedia's verifiability, not truth policy), I'm not sure they're sufficiently egregious to justify deleting. I'll leave it up to you, anyway, I just wanted to provide that clarification. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clearup, I hadnt actualy noticed that the removed comments had been restored until I saw the double sig on it for the origional contributor and the reposter. I based the re-removal off of the section on (your talk page) with the origional contributor. It did contain a bit on wikipedia policy, one of many already on that page, the readdition of deleted content didn't sit well, nor the negative pov OR and damaging comments on the artist such as "...he ripped off things", "...We all know ... that his comic is the poor mans' Penny-Arcade", and "Rumour has been going around that his sillies are a rip off too". I made sure I included the original deletion diff in the summary but wasnt able to include the readdition diff (kept cutting off the link). Knowledgeum : Talk 20:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I recall your behavior during the whole anon75. mess, and I would appreciate if you might stop mimicking their behavior and focusing on the article, and not the editor. Your comment was refactored to show where it was posted, and not orphaning my post in response. It's considered fucking impolite. Additionally, your comments were un-bolded, as bold translates as shouting, and shouting isn't going to accomplish matters. I'm going to ask you to calm down, and return to civil, professional discussion, and leave the posts be, please. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My additions to the talk page are well within guidelines, your altering of my comments is not acceptable under policy and I suggest you stop it before you do more damage[3]. I will restore my original comments. Knowledgeum : Talk 21:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise against it. Your comments, inserted above my previously posted ones, tend to orphan them from the posts and discussions they were replying to. I understand that you are relatively new here, but you might want to re-read TALK a bit more thoroughly. As for the removal of the bold text, you don't need bold text when italics will do fine - bold is like shouting, and its childish. I did you a favor. As for damage to your posts, the only damage - the excising of your sig, was repaired by myself in less than a minute.
I suggest that when you post, you do so at the bottom of the discussion, after previous posts. If you are responding to specific conversations, state who you are responding to; inserting your comments above others' prevents their comments from being seen as part of a thread. That is disruptive.
Of course, I won't stop you if you wish to do make all of your posts scream to the heavens in bold text; if you want to look the fool, more power to you. However, your posts will not orphan mine. Just want to make you clear on that. If you need assistance understanding the protocols better, feel free to ask me or someone else. - Arcayne(cast a spell)22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, no one altered your signature. I added it back in while repairing the damage from your orphaning insertion of text above mine. If you want to see my actions as sinister, you are incorrect - probably as I would be incorrect in assuming a sinister reason for not notifying me of your complaint to ANI about me. Now, of course, you either simply forgot or are enough of a new user to not know that protocol, but you've been here for almost a year. Good faith works both ways, my friend. - Arcayne(cast a spell)22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per the ANI, let's try this again: I am sorry for having removed your bold texted quote from your post, and furthermore moving the entire post to follow the chronological and discussion thread order. I wasn't wrong to do so, but I was wrong to not discuss the matter with you and offering you the opportunity to do so yourself. As well, I was wrong to remove the bold text again. I was not, however, incorrect in moving your post into chronological order. I do not wish my posts to be taken out of context or orphaned in context by a mistake in ordering. It is, in essence, refactoring my post. I was wrong, and you were wrong. Perhaps we should shake hands shrug (not i did not say kiss and make up) and put this behind us. How about it? - Arcayne(cast a spell)22:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really had no issue with moving (indenting/outdenting) my messages, my issue was removing the bolding of text relivant to my comments (as to not get lost in a endless sea of text). The sorting of the discussion I was not concearned with, I think this may have snowballed, which is fairly common for an internet "forum" (or medium). I agree we can both be wrong. <shake> Knowledgeum : Talk 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may suggest, using the textbox feature and rendering the relevant part of policy in italics serves much better. It comes across as more classy, if that is indeed the right word to use. - Arcayne(cast a spell)23:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Knowledgeum. I have noticed you are interested in volcanoes. Are you interested in making contributions to Canadian volcano articles? Volcanism is a major feature of Canada's landscape and lots of work is needed for these articles and very few Canadians on Wikipedia seem interested in making such contributions for some reason. I'm currently making Canadian volcano contributions and eventually bring these articles to at least GA class. Currently I have brought the Mount Edziza volcanic complex, Mount Garibaldi, Silverthrone Caldera, Wells Gray-Clearwater volcanic field, Bowie Seamount and Anahim hotspot to GA class. I hope you contribute more and can help in many ways. Black Tusk (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knew there was somethign I was forgetting to do when I come here. I'll definately contribute, though my source materials would mostly come from the Encyclopedia of British Columbia as thats the largest collection of source material I have. I would more likely contribute to western volcanos, probably other geological features (Juan De Fuca Plate, Formation of the Rockies, etc etc). You caught me on my off day which is good too, I'll start collecting my materials and see what I can add to the effort. Knowledgeum : Talk 20:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my lack of respose as well; I haven't checked this page since I left the comment above. I'm currently making maps for Mount Meager, Hoodoo Mountain, Silverthrone Caldera, Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents, Fort Selkirk Volcanic Field and a map of young volcanic areas in western Canada in general. For the past three years on Wikipedia I've been contributing to all volcanic areas in Canada (i.e. British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta, Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador) by gathering infomation in books and elsewhere on the internet. But most of my contributions is volcanism in British Columbia as you can see. I have completely new material for the Volcanism in Canada article some 96 kilobytes long, which I'm still working on to get posted and most likely has to be separated into "sub-articles", given its massive length. Kind of strange almost no one has put effort in Canadian volcanism; it spans from the Precambrian period some 3.11 billion years ago. Anyway just introducing myself to you, as I can see one of your interests is volcanoes; there's probably more users that would be interested as well. Black Tusk (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you saw on my talk page, but I was out of the country until today, with very little internet access. Last time I was away, I had another admin watch a few of the hot spots on my watchlist (including Ctrl+Alt+Del) but this time things seemed quiet, so I didn't bother. Obviously that was a mistake. I'm about to go through and delete the problematic revisions, but I'm I right in believing that the situation has subsided for now? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you must have been away from wiki. From what I have seem the issue seems to have subsided, but as always will come back up again. I think we should get some sort of "This article talk page has gone x days without a blp violation." Thanks for your effortss on keeping wikipedia clean! Knowledgeum : Talk 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this was my fault - when I deleted the page (which is a necessary part of deleting specific revisions of the page, unfortunately), I forgot that deleting and restoring a page cancels any existing protection. I've restored it for another month now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hi, i was interested in the article you posted about jack grimms expedition to locate titanic, i know personally the person who should be credited with finding the titanic wreck his name is douglas j faulkner woolley you may of heard of him?, anyway i am trying to get this information onto wikipedia but am ashamed to say i am a bit of a novice, to say the least, just wondered if you would be interested in helping me with this matter?, he has a small website [4] and has written a book called "one mans dream" isbn 0-9533175-0-1, if not interested no problem, thanks for readinglisa marie w 23:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why we are keeping indefinite protection here. There hasn't been an issue with vandals showing up since last fall, and overall the issues with the page have ceased. Frankly, a lot of them were caused with one editor provoking an exceedingly non-neutral stance in the article and yet having apparent friendships with several admins to push for stronger sanctions against other editors. Personally I think it would be better to remove the protection template and see how things go; though I have admittedly wanted some things added, I have kept my stance that the page needs to be treated the same as any other and have reverted a lot of the "malicious"/vandal edits. Just my two cents. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the template as A Chain of Flowers did does not undo any protection on the page. Removing the protection template takes the page off the list that administrators can watch to see what articles are currently being protected, thus orphaning it. I'm not about to get into anything on the content or quality or whos this and whats that on the article, removing the protection template does not unprotect the page, it just takes it off the admin watch lists, thus why I restored it. If you want to discuss the protection you need to contact the admin that set it, User:Sarcasticidealist, he is still "active" in the sense he maintains his account and has his email turned on, specificly for maintaining protections he has in place. For removing the actual protection on the page you should contact him, otherwise deleting the template that helps admins track what pages are protected or not does nothing other than cause headaches for admins trying to keep track of protected pages. Knowledgeum : Talk 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series episodes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian British Columbians are planning a meetup at the Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch, on Sunday, October 16th, as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver and add your signature to the list.
Your upload of File:Bertrand MO Watertower.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)13:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.09:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
June 12, 2019 edit-a-thon at "Atla Annual 2019" in Vancouver British Columbia
The 1000 Women in Religion Project is working to improve the coverage of women’s contributions to religious, spiritual and wisdom traditions worldwide. In support of this goal, the edit-a-thon at Atla's (formerly the American Theological Library Association) annual meeting will focus on improving articles about women in religion. We would love to have a few Vancouver area Wikipedians to help us get new editors oriented and editing!!
Wednesday, June 12, 2019 8:00am-12:00pm Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre 1088 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2R9 Canada
