Misplaced Pages

User talk:Knowledgekid87: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:39, 12 May 2013 editKnowledgekid87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers96,555 edits →Improper close: Re← Previous edit Revision as of 17:41, 12 May 2013 edit undo76.189.109.155 (talk) →Improper closeNext edit →
Line 243: Line 243:


:I closed the proposal per ] there was a clear oppose consensus before my opinion. - ] (]) 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC) :I closed the proposal per ] there was a clear oppose consensus before my opinion. - ] (]) 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

::You are absolutely not allowed to close a proposal that you have !voted in. It's highly inappropriate. Also, you have actively participated in some of the other current proposals. Again, if you feel that a proposal should be closed, ask an admin or other very experienced editor, who is totally ''uninvolved'' in the move proposals, to review it. Finally, WP:COMMONSENSE is merely an essay; it's just an editor's opinion. Hopefully, the entire matter of a new title will be decided soon. :) --] (]) 17:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:41, 12 May 2013


Archives

/Archive1, /Archive2


Election

Just for the record: you moved the election page just half a second before I pressed the button and I was gazing at my screen without knowing why couldn't I move the page. Funny, isn't it?--The Theosophist (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we both have super fast fingers =p. Anyways I feel that a move for the page should be discussed first why I made the move back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Same with me. My move summary was "Unless you move EACH US presidential election page, you should not change the longtime pattern on just one of them. In fact you'd better initiate a debate in the talk page".--The Theosophist (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning Just a friendly reminder, keep the RR's down to three. United States presidential election, 2012 is subject to sanctions, see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. But thanks for making the revert... Apteva (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Palestine-Israel enforcement restriction

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Azumanga Daioh characters

I fail to see how " Chiyo Mihama" is "sourced well". All of the sources are primary (the manga/anime itself, an interview with the character's voice actress) or don't mention her (the case study on Japanese education, which only verifies that grade-skipping is rare in Japan; including this is WP:SYNTH and of no import to the character herself since it makes no mention of her). The other article redirects you undid are just as poorly sourced — nothing but the anime or manga itself, plus very thin secondary sourcing at best that tells very little on the character. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the redirects with sources because I wanted a third party opinion on this, if they are redirected okay but is the characters are winning popularity aewards there could be some sources in Japanese that can be helpful. I did not undo all the redirects you made, most of them I had agreed with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

BTW, using edit summaries like "See talkpage" on an article with a talk page as large and fast-moving as that isn't much more useful than no edit summary at all. Please at least refer to a section within the talk page. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I usually provide an edit summary the edits are being made so fast though I am getting alot of edit conflicts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I totally understand. It's pretty frenetic. However, with folks getting blocked left and right related to actions on this article, decent edit summaries sure do help. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Bath School disaster & Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Citing a death-toll (clearly stated in the literature, clearly-stated in contemporaneous news-reports and clearly-stated in more recent news-reports) is OR? I don't see how a verifiable historical fact is not a verifiable historical fact... Shearonink (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not saying that the bath murders was not the most deadly, my concern is that saying that Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting comes in at #2 behind bath is the bit that worries me. The only thing saying this is the list on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Just found an NBC News source that concurs with the fact that 45 people died in the Bath massacre, which makes it the deadliest in US history. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your tireless efforts at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. Thanks to editors like you, this article serves as a shining example of editorial collaboration and boldness. Please accept this shiny gold Barnstar of Diligence in recognition of your contributions. - MrX 01:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I will do my best to continue the efforts. ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Survivor: Philippines

Re your message: I blocked one account. Hopefully that will put a stop to it. If it doesn't, I'll set the protection. You should be able to move the Survivor 26 article yourself. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Link

i think u ought to leave that guy's "survivalist mum" link on the talk page; just lose his sarcastic quip (which i had just called "disgusting" myself. 67.150.86.17 (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The link was WP:POV as it was, if you want you can readd it to start the debate but I do not think it will be useful because of the issue it has. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Knowledgekid87. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Mihama.
Message added 01:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • 01:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gundam

I'm not trying to protect all of these articles, as you can see I don't even participate in a lot of those AfDs about Gundam, but the consensus of wikipedia is just too strange to see. It is quite obvious that almost all fictional articles have tons of fans creating multiple articles about those things in it, thus there should be a large number of users supporting these kind of articles, on the other hand, deletionists basically are pretty much the same group of people who stick around long enough in a lot of AfDs to show a consensus, even if the articles do have references, some of them will just give claims about them not being notable or independent on the basis of they don't know them. I have seen a lot of AfDs that go this way, and is simply just tired of all these. In fact, I do prefer merging most of the articles, and keep them in better order, but I guess most of the users who care were driven away but deletionists long time ago. BTW, the Gundam wiki itself became a fan fiction site, with tons of made up stuff in most of the articles, and is quite beyond repair, don't tell me to go there. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 04:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The fans "supporting these kind of articles" though would have no basis of support without sources, and a merge can only go so far before its just moving just plot info back into Gundam. The thing about unsourced info is that it can always be re-added as it is usually plot information or from a fan's POV describing the plot, maybe someone can find it sourced and put it in the other articles to better them for the future. I dont consider myself a deletionist and try my best to look for potential in an article but when I dont see the article going much of anywhere in the future it becomes hard to want to defend it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, a lot of deletionists simply ignore sources that are against them. I don't find you a deletionist, just like I don't find myself a inclusionist. Lists of fictional items were actually once allowed in wikipedia, and they don't need to have their own notability test as long as the main article itself is sufficiently notable and too long(well over 32kb), lists are to minimize the size of the main article while providing more info for readers. There is actually an article about the horses in the Lord of the Rings, and was a featured list and an example of lists of fictional items, where it states the names of the real-life horses that were used in the movies to portrait them and how they appear in the show, and now it is reduced to a minimal section with no source. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 13:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a small favor

Hello. Just a small favor. Over the course of the last few days or so, I created the articles Haruka Yamazaki and Aya Suzaki (both stubs on seiyuu). They haven't been patrolled yet, and due to technical issues, I can't patrol them myself (which is ironic since I mainly do new-page patrolling), and I'm not an autopatroller since I have created less than 50 articles. Can you patrol them for me? There's a backlog at Special:Newpages as always, so it could help. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 12:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure I will look at them now, sorry for the delay I have been as little busy myself and have only found time to go on here to make an edit here and there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the close

I was about to ask another admin to do so. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem =) Happy New Year! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thank you for welcoming me to Misplaced Pages! Jucchan (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy new year! =).

Tagging of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

Hi Knowledgekid87, you tagged Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories with {{undue}}, but I think you did so based on a misunderstanding. The text of that template says that the article "lends undue weight... relative to the article subject as a whole." I agree that extended content on conspiracy theories at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting would just do that. But as a standalone article, the "subject as a whole" is the conspiracy theories. If we found some whackjob that reptoids were behind it all and really focused on his theory, that would be undue. I don't think the article is currently constructed that way. Only theories that have been discussed in reliable, secondary sources are included. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

When I look at 9/11 conspiracy theories to compare right in the lead there is a sourced bit by the National Institute of Standards and Technology which investigated and rejected the claims and while this article is diffrent, it would be helpful to add the critic's point of view to these conspiracy theories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on expansion right now, including more critical views. Mind if I remove the tag when I do? If you still think the problem exists, you can re-tag or let me know. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, feel free to expand the article and remove the tag, I placed it as it would help the NPOV issue as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Same thing goes for that tag. If you still think it's a problem after my next edit, slap it right back on. I won't consider it edit warring. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay and thanks for helping out =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I noticed you went from " no problem with" the article to voting for deletion. You're allowed to change your opinion, of course, but did something trigger that or was it more a matter of further reflection? I don't suppose I can entice you to help me save it instead. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

F91 Gundam Formula 91

Hi,

I noticed you just redirected this article with a comment saying that nothing has been merged since the AFD closed. Since you were one of the two people who voted for a merge in the AFD, I was wondering if you had any content in mind that you thought should be merged. I un-redirected the article a month ago specifically because I thought you had identified some content that you thought should be merged. If there isn't actually any content that you think should be merged, then I'm fine with the article just being redirected . . . it just seemed like you had something in mind to merge at the time. Calathan (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Right now Mobile Suit Gundam F91 has no sources, I have been doing my best to clean up the Gundam related articles and after having a chance to look it over could not find anything worth merging, what the article needs is sources most. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls

You've ruined all my work on the page. I was just settling down and completely revolutionizing the page, why do so as you have replaced before, it's so confusing and too messy. I also put the video as a source for only: how they should be sections and Written by Storyboarded by for each season, and finally some names in some episodes were written in the wrong episodes. You've made it back the way it was again messy, and I have to thank you for this. You've ruined everything! Luigi1090 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Rail accident

What is this mania to remove the articles from the other? keep your business!! http://info.rsi.ch/home/channels/informazione/svizzera/info_on_line/2013/01/10-Sciaffusa_scontro_tra_due_treni the article should be expanded! forget to take care of deleting the rail accidents! Best regards Robyc73 (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN thread

A thread on the issues at Talk:Syrian civil war has been posted on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Director (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Syrian civil war".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Winter storm naming

Hi Knowledgekid. Thanks so much for your input in the discussion. I just wanted to make you aware that I sent an invitation out to editors who have edited the article or participated in the AfD. Hopefully, we can all work together to develop a great article. A copy of the invitation I sent is below. Thanks, again, and have a great week.

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please subst when using {{afd-notice}}

Hallo, in this edit you added a notice to DGG's talk page, but didn't "subst" it. As a result later editors to the preceding section got muddled (no new section was created for the afd notice). The template documentation says it should always be substituted: please remember this another time. Thanks. PamD 08:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

It seems you know a lot about the deletion criteria so I have some questions. I often come upon articles like these Dendrobates (manga) which are unlicensed and unadapted into other media; Often this makes it nearly impossible to establish notability. I was wondering if I can prod these articles for that reason. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Dendrobates (manga) should be redirected to Young Champion if the Ip is giving you trouble protection might be needed for the redirect page. The answer to your question though would be yes, articles for manga which are unlicensed and unadapted into other media should usually be prodded unless enough reliable Japanese sources are present. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
For your work on Boston Marathon bombings. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I enjoy working with and getting to know new people =). My thoughts are with the victims and families of the sad event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Section combining

The section combining you're doing at the Talk:Boston Marathon bombings is losing edits in the mix, at least one or two I noticed. It's just too busy right now to do that, especially when you're doing it in multiple runs like you are... just let the sections evolve on their own. It's better than silently losing responses, which is what happened. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

PPG

Stop removing prequel movie s like List of Power Rangers Turbo episodes it applies to the PPG as well. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.16.119 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Note The creator of PPG helped with the box set. Amazon.com also post the airdates for the show but on the days before the airdates on iTunes meaning that it is not a glitch. The episodes likely aired out of order and McCracken had them put back in order for the complete series release. I own the box set and McCracken wrote the summary on the back and also made a custom panoramic poster for the set. Just to give some insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.16.119 (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is fine and all but I need a reliable source showing that or else it is WP:OR Original research. Don't get me wrong I would love to see the airdates all added but I don't want to leap into something that may not be right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The page itself also post that the series ends in 2005 and is sourced as well in line to your comment "I commented on my talkpage if you are going by a boxed set then it is WP:OR. The airdates also look all mixed up like this, why would an episode that was made in 2005 be in season 4? While the last is from 2004 in season 6?" Also here are the iTunes and Amazon.com's info on the airdates for seasons 3-6 and if you look both state around the same time just Amazon.com's is the day before: Season 3, iTunes Season 3, Amazon.com, Season 4, iTunes, Season 4, Amazon.com, Season 5, iTunes, Season 5, Amazon.com, Season 6, iTunes, Season 6, Amazon.com. It seems there is enough evidence to support my theory alone but I can try and go deeper but the likihood is with everything I have just shown you a lot of what is shown and what the page itself claims it seems to me the explanation I gave you earlier explains the odd airdate differences and the boxset's release order which I am sure the page is based off of. 65.189.16.119 (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I must say List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes the airdates are correct, what likely happened is the episodes orders were based of the The Powerpuff Girls: The Complete Series - 10th Anniversary Collection boxset instead of their airing order. Several pages on here do that. I have noticed episodes that air at a different time then another and no explanation as to how it ended up before another episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.16.119 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I know I own it too. My point is as I pointed out on the talk page the episodes are in the order of The Powerpuff Girls: The Complete Series - 10th Anniversary Collection not their actual airfares which is why the airdates of some episodes are out of order. Also I think there is an episode of The Powerpuff Girls that proves the movie is part of the series. Season 6 Episode 1 Part 1 "Prime Mates" proves it is part of the series. They would not have used that if the movie was not a part of the TV series as well as actual movie. 65.189.16.119 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it did air on CN but I'll have to double check that. 65.189.16.119 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell

Hi. Can you please share you thoughts on Talk:Ghost in the Shell#Scope? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Farewell

I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In case you wonder

It is not about what WP:ANIME can and cannot do, I'm not going to take your tags down as Juhachi has done with mine. I'm not a card carrying member of WP:ANIME, and no editors need to be to edit such articles. According to WP:Council/G, " A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article per Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people." ANIME can keep there tags, we are a sub-section like how Wikiproject Video Games include Wikiproject Square Enix, to which Lucia is a part of. A scope for a Wikiproject, versus a task force is based on the needs and the amount of content to be covered. Taskforces are best reserves for Bleach, Dragonball and so on, usually under 200~ articles. We cover over 2000 articles on works, and that's before organizations and creators like Toshio Maeda. We have no intentions of purging WP:ANIME's tags or scope, we just want to co-exist. And yes... I really prefer not posting explicit content all over any wikiproject (not just ANIME) if I can help it, same with guides and resources about said topic. Its not just a common courtesy either, we need the categorization system in order to function effectively and a taskforce cannot do that. Consider it a Taskforce if you wish, Taskforces have their own subpages, but the only real difference is that a Wikiproject has its own banner and is not subject to the bureaucracy of another. That's all, its not going to destroy or split WP:ANIME and most editors from WP:ANIME do not want to admit it, but the subject matter is embarrassing and difficult to find reliable sources. You were brave enough to say it though, and if WP:HENTAI becomes even a tiny bit useful for you then its done its job, because it is also a resource board for collaboration on the subject matter. You do not need to join it or affiliate yourself even if you do use it, its more common then you think. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop removing the project's tag as you did at Shotacon. It did not even trigger on the article watchlist because of the way you manually remove it without undoing. You also did this at Lolicon. It is disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong move request closed

At Talk:2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio you closed several of the outstanding move requests, however you closed the most recent (active) proposal Talk:2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio#Let's try again: "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight" which is the one that should be left open. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, is there a way to fix it? The move requests were becoming a mess and closed all but the oldest request made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If it were me, I'd just undo my close of the most recent one, close the oldest and leave a descriptive edit summary (and maybe a note in the open discussion) explaining what you're doing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay fixed =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I was just in the process of swapping it to have the oldest one closed instead, but you got to it first. :) We'll make more progress on the newer one, I think. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem ^-^ Yeah hopefully a consensus can be reached. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix, the discussions did need tidying! Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is for the repeated removals of tags from pages like Shotacon and Lolicon and your uncivil comments and disruption at WP:ANIME. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I only removed the project tag hentai tags once because I didn't know that they were under Hentai's scope, also the comment was made towards your personal attack on Lucia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Consider it dropped. It was not retaliation, but bad timing on noticing your other edits. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Its okay and I accept your apology, im not out to oust the Hentai project by the way I wish you and it the best of luck, maybe it can become a great project =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't intend to bump heads, but honestly... the GITS matter is weighing a bit heavy on me after 50 pages. I slipped a bit. With Maeda's passing I want to have the actual article reach FA and the destruction and falsification of the article really strikes a nerve with me, especially when its intentional by a supposed expert on the subject. Talk:Ghost in the Shell is enough to see a fragment of the matter. Its not winning or losing; and I have become a bit emotionally involved under the circumstances. My intention is to work it out or open an RFC. I don't care about how much groveling I need to do, but I want things to improve and me stepping out for 2 months only lead to it becoming worse. I am stubborn now because of that, but I am trying to do what I feel is best for Misplaced Pages.
I really want A&M users to think of Hentai as a taskforce of sorts, because I need their input and assistance, but for technical reasons it needs to be split for watch and categorization with different importance levels. The content is another reason for me, but my reasoning and Misplaced Pages's policies is drowned out by her. Its a complex matter, but I probably should just ignore anything she says or posts because it affects me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Well the thing I try to do is assume good faith as much as I can it is important not to lose your cool I was coming close in what was a heated RfC here regarding the Hentai Project. As for Lucia why not ask her to have a chat with you? Maybe you can lay it all down in a discussion and if you tried that don't quit at it, talk about what she wants and what you want and hammer out the problems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
In a week, perhaps. It is best summed up as 'i want a topic franchise page' and she doesn't. Like Dragonball Z (by policy and other reasons) can have a page because it meets GNG. A matter that I took a lot heat for, but was ultimately tied to a 5 year old discussion about an issue with MOS-AM. I have been tinkering with the page in my sandbox for awhile now, but issues of existence being denied is a problem that is an absolute case. Hence, there is no compromise and one of us will 'lose'. The issues are so different because what ANIME does is not what the rest of Misplaced Pages has to conform to. Stand alone lists have to meet notability, ANIME says otherwise. Matters like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS are key community wide arguments and the GITS matter is covered under WP:DETAIL, but she denies that as relevant, even with the key sentence, "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs." Which according to common sense that a topic about a large body of works can be split up, especially if it cannot cater to all types of readers, getting more specific and detailed as it goes. The 'this is not how we work' is why I refuse to join ANIME and place its tag on my page; it is expected that joining a project or working in its areas conform with its preferences. Misplaced Pages does not define distinctions between the PH.D and the 15 year old fan, and the more esoteric the argument the less people will comment on it. The most non-controversial topics are controversial here. Working together is definitely ideal, but we will not reach a decision between ourselves, when you go into discussion with your mind set on not budging and inform others to do so, its not going to be productive. Its why things got this bad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Improper close

Hi KK87. You improperly closed a move proposal on the talk page at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio with this edit. It has been reverted. While I fully agree with you that it should be snow-closed - in fact, I'm the one who requested it - you are not allowed to do it because you !voted on the proposal. If you feel that a proposal should be closed, ask an uninvolved admin or other very experienced editor to review it. Thanks. FYI... another editor improperly snow-closed two of the other alternative proposals. The editor participated in both of them and one of them had three supports and four opposes. I'm not sure, but he may have simply copy-and-pasted your snow close. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I closed the proposal per WP:COMMONSENSE there was a clear oppose consensus before my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely not allowed to close a proposal that you have !voted in. It's highly inappropriate. Also, you have actively participated in some of the other current proposals. Again, if you feel that a proposal should be closed, ask an admin or other very experienced editor, who is totally uninvolved in the move proposals, to review it. Finally, WP:COMMONSENSE is merely an essay; it's just an editor's opinion. Hopefully, the entire matter of a new title will be decided soon. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)