User talk:Knowledgekid87/Archive5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Knowledgekid87. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For asking about my identity. I appreciate it more than you may realize, so here's a kitten.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I put a note in talk Talk:January_2015_North_American_blizzard#The_use_of_the_TWC_name_in_the_first_line_is_an_endorsement_of_TWC. You seem interested in this, so, I'd love to hear your opinion. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The article Chi (Chobits) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chi (Chobits) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on your hard work! :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks =) Thank you for your help as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi KK, I think it would help if you were to stop posting about RO and the SPI. You were the top poster to the SPI page, plus all your posts about it elsewhere. All it serves to do is increase the heat. If you'd like things to calm down, the best way is to lead by example. Cheers, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I would love for the issue to end but of course you know Wikipedia as much as I do that it just doesn't happen. [1][2]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

One voice fewer would help at this point. I'll try to take my own advice and leave it there. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you too, I will just let it drop, I have been trying to help RO out though as she has been through a-lot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

KK87, I appreciate that you were there to defend me while so many others were attacking. SV says that more voices to the discussion is bad, but she pinged an editor who called me a cunt and another who harassed me all over Wikipedia for 6 weeks that I agreed to an IB with. Thanks for being there, if not for you and Viriditas, I would have had little support. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to put blame on SV here as maybe she didn't know about the cunt thing (I hope not). I feel it is best going forward is to put this SPI behind us and either voluntary staying away from each other for like a week, or through WP:AN seek an IB between you and Victoria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

KK87, SV linked to this thread at SPI, which clearly states that the editor she pinged had called an admin a cunt, and later clarified that they were referring to me, as they edit warred to keep the slur at talk. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Id like to WP:AGF but SV if you are watching I don't see how it was helpful to ping someone who has had a bad past with RO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

She pinged an editor who had been indeffed for harassing me to pile it on; it was no accident. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Right now I think you should try to go back to normal editing, this isn't right I know but here on Wikipedia things like these build up over time. Going to WP:ANI about it for example is just going to cause other editors to rehash the SPI case all over again and it will be a mess. Hopefully it ends here, if not then the small things will sadly add up into a case that would be in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I like your controbutions to Wikipedia, and are happy that you like manga if you can I would like one of your Manga drawings.

Glistensnow (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks =) I haven't drawn in awhile but can show you what I have done via youtube. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Knowledgekid87, for your kind comments at [3] about my quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia to improve articles related to freedom of speech and censorship to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA. Please also note that the article includes commentary from secondary sources written by women, including: Carly Milne, Regina Lynn, Annalee Newitz of AlterNet, author Violet Blue, author Audacia Ray, Bonnie Ruberg of The Village Voice, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Jessica Roy of The New York Observer, author Sarah Schaschek -- indeed, the majority of the secondary-source-commentary in the article itself is cited to female authors. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Knowledgekid87, There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: List of participants. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}. Join in discussion at project talkpage. Notify other editors you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject. Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, -- — Cirt (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

So, do you have an anime and manga project in mind? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The only other one I was thinking of improving was Missions of Love for right now, other than that in the short term have been working on general cleanup issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want my help, just ask! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks =) I am going to take a break online for a bit (Like an hour) but will be back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a case of a bad article rather than a non notable subject. i am restoring the article in order to work on it, my user space is already full of WIP Lupin stuff so I will do it live. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@SephyTheThird: if you know the series then yes by all means fix the article up. Right now though it is all in universe info that if trimmed down would fit nicely into the list of characters article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The character articles all suffer from the same issues but they were low priority compared to the job of the wider franchise (which is never ending work). However I have a pretty good idea of what is missing, needs removing or sourcing it's just a case of time. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well for Chi (Chobits) for example which I worked on to GA status I found that linking to episodes count as a plus. The biggest thing you need to find are real world information the more the better best of luck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded rough at List of anime by release date (pre-1939)'s afd. I see you worked on the others. I been focusing on American short films for awhile since I has better access to the original documents. You are trying to improve Wikipedia - and I need to sometimes take a step back from the actual bad-faith person I sometimes have to deal with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Its okay, no worries, Im not making any promises to edits right away as im going through the cleanup list ATM but will put the list on my watchlist to look at and improve upon at a later time =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have some 1030 articles that need to be created and about 100 more that need to be pushed to GA status. The project - unlike A&M - is not controversial and coverage of the content is abysmal. A&M is probably something I shouldn't edit too much because you know how I tend to swoop in, drop a bunch of content, and move to the next article. I can do that without ruffling anyone's feathers in the boonies that is American silent films. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going with your idea of tagging Expand Japanese on the articles that are built up for the BLP stubs. That should remove the tags for BLP sources until that exercise has been done and will bring over a decent bio which can then be referenced. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Okay sounds good! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Knowledgekid87,

I noticed that you shut down the Tvx11 imitation account the other day. I have found another one whom I believe to be the same editor, as his user talk page was created with the description "for fun" before he blanked it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADarrandarra&diff=650895838&oldid=650895532

I am on the lookout for others. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Sorry but im no admin, the person you are looking for is User:JodyB. I merely suggested that this could be something of a bigger thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be one of those times where several individual works are actually part of an anthology series. You may want to consider adding/merging The Cosmopolitan Prayers and Love Love?, they are all listed together in Anime Encyclopedia. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Out of the three Love Love? has the most potential of being notable. I will prob add/merge The Cosmopolitan Prayers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have removed the PROD template from the above article. The PROD was due to expire on March 22, which is 10 days before the new series started. There are separate list articles for series 1-4, 6, 16 and 17, so it would seem likely that the article for series 18 would be recreated next month anyway.
I have also raised a separate issue on the talk page of the main article, Talk:Prince Mackaroo. Your user page suggests you are an anime person, so you may be able to contribute an opinion there. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

there should never be a need to create a episode list before something has even aired, regardless of how long the series is or how many other articles there are. Episodes should be listed on the main list until a reasonable number have aired, when they can be moved onto an article (assuming they have summaries, otherwise no reason for a separate article at all).SephyTheThird (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, @Athomeinkobe: can you show how the new episodes are notable or have had an impact? A mention of the episodes in prose on the main article should be fine until notability is established for a split off list. I feel like bringing this to AfD as we cant and don't have lists of everything just because they may or do exist. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I replied to your other message on the article's talk page. I now see that you are proposing that the lists be removed in their entirety. In that case, I suggest you take it up with the author of the lists. I am not an anime person myself, so I am not particularly interested in investing any time in sourcing the notability of individual episodes or series. However, looking at this list, the show seems to be in fairly esteemed company. Sources to satisfy notability require are bound to exist in Japanese, if not English. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to keep bothering you, but I see you've listed List of Chibi Maruko-chan episodes at the page Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I am now having second thoughts and tend to agree with you that there is not much that establishes these long lists of episodes as being notable. On the other hand, most TV shows tend to automatically have a list of episodes, don't they? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe: Its okay you aren't a bother, I just haven't the time to take a good look here, as you said there are tons of lists and articles that really need help. If you want I can point you to some lists that are in better shape than the ones for Ojarumaru that have outside coverage in the form of a better lead/reception section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

An anonymous user has just blanked a reception section I wrote for Gundam Reconguista in G. I believe he did so because he was a fan of the show and did not want any negative reception to be noted. I provided several sources and backed up my claims. 72.238.104.64 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me, in my years here, to see when socks seem to think they're the first ones to try that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Same here, you would also that even if they do say such and such they expect it to actually work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You've made quite a few comments about me that are either filled with innuendo or are simply not nice. It's not conducive to a collegial and collaborative editing environment. I'm asking you to stop. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Asking you to provide concrete evidence for ILT isn't asking much, you are suggesting that the community supports sock puppets "It's sad that "the community" would rather support a person who to date has created over 108 confirmed accounts and perhaps hundreds of articles that need to be scrubbed." I do not see that as collaborative editing either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. A couple weeks ago Eureka (Eureka Seven) was placed for AfD along with mentions of Dominic Sorel and Anemone (Eureka Seven). Since the relevant discussion has now closed, I was wondering what should become of these remaining articles since the AfD tag remains on them. Based on the mentions by the nominator and the closing admin's decision I say we merge them. Thoughts? —Kirt^Message 14:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged, the reception of the characters will really benefit the characters list with the out of universe info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. There wasn't much reception. —Kirt^Message 16:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the series articles are pretty much cleaned up now. I was thinking of further merging the AO characters to the main ES character list but I'm not going to force a merger or anything. The last thing that concerns me is the existence of the mecha article. —Kirt^Message 12:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it would be best if it could be merged into the plot and explained there in like a paragraph not a full article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchback_(Celldweller_song) I know about this subject area. Is a source form the original artist's website, or a documentary of creating the song a good reference?Doorknob747 (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Scratch that im now looking to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Levante I only want to learn how to format ref area so bullet points do not go on pic.Doorknob747 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you also tell me how I did by putting the wikiproject automobile stubclass article box. Doorknob747 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) @Doorknob747: The types of reliable sources are outlined here. BTW, the cheat code for the image question is to put the bullet points above or below the image, or put the image on the right side of the page. That is currently a glitch. Epic Genius (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Epic Genius: I fixed it. Doorknob747 (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Doorknob747: I will be happy to answer any questions by Monday. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robotech Armed Forces received a non admin closure as no consensus despite it being 2 deletes+nom vs 1 keep and the arguments presented. What are your thoughts? SephyTheThird (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@SephyTheThird: I feel like it was speedily closed and would take it to WP:DRV. My thoughts were going there but then its another thing to do, and I have been trying to condense the character list as it is. If you want to take it to DRV I would support an overturn. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

another editor took the issue up with the closer who has now added his own comments.SephyTheThird (talk)<

Yes I see that and thanks for mentioning something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, could you slow down and stop steamrolling with 2015 Baltimore riots? You're acting against consensus on the talk page, where the people who want a split are in the minority. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point I would send the proposed article to AfD, there is a split here and I feel other editors should weigh in. Adding an info-box is not much of a streamroll. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello K. I suspect in dealing with this "dodo sock" you probably saw this User talk:Doorknob747/database/doc4. I thought about putting a speedy tag on it but, since the pest put it in your name, I thought I'd let you do the honors. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I was going to but why isn't it under Ghost's namespace? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Door's ghost created it in Doorknob747's space. I've already tagged it with a g5 speedy delete. BMK (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, it confused me here is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that BMK. K when trolls like this one pop up that is one of the ways that they will mess with editors that they don't like. I am sorry that you both have had to put up with this nonsense. Hopefully everyone can get back to normal editing - whatever that is. HeeHee. MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

...I know about it. I'm monitoring it, but don't plan to participate, since every one of the complainants (except for one, who I'm not sure about) is holding a grudge against me because of previous disputes. The lastest one's cause for grudgery can be seen directly up the page on AN/I, where I (and other editors) recommended he be blocked for blatant violations of his interaction ban. In short, so far, there's no meat in these complaints, just the airing out of past grudges. BMK (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, best of luck and happy editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

RE: [4] at Arb. Just FYI, a clerk will remove your statement pretty soon; now that the case has been opened, they don't allow that page to be edited except by arbitrators/clerks. As for why take it to Arbcom rather than indef block Lightbreather? Because if I issued an indef-blocked, you and others would yell that I was too involved and there'd be a big ANI brouhaha. The wiser alternative then, is to allow the arbitrators to determine whether or not an indef block is necessary or whether other sanctions might be more appropriate (or whether no sanctions are appropriate at all). The bigger underlying question is whether the community has handled this appropriately - is it okay to just keep handing out interaction bans when two people aren't getting along, or is there a limit at which we say, hmmmm, maybe that isn't the best way of moving forward. The case evidence and workshop pages are open, if you have anything you'd like to add. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Karanacs: Yeah except now it is going to be an arbcom brouhaha. Karanacs you are a good admin but the fact is that you have interacted with LB, so you aren't and cant claim to be totally uninvolved here. Why not get someone like User:Alison's opinion for example? She doesn't know LB much less interact with her but I respect her opinions as well as yours if you were uninvolved in a case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Opening an Arbcom case has nothing to do with being an admin, so me being "involved" or not has zero relevance. It's an action any user can take. To get an uninvolved opinion, I could go to ANI, I could go to AN, I could go to an individual admin or editor...or I could take it to Arbcom. I chose to do the latter because Arbcom is the only one of those options which I thought would give Lightbreather a fair hearing rather than a series of rants. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough but admin or not I feel you are involved which could play a factor in judgement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is the whole point of taking it to Arbcom, where I can present evidence, and LB can present evidence, and other people can present evidence, and the Arbs can sift through it and issue their uninvolved opinions. Pretty much every single Arbcom case is brought by someone who is involved with a dispute. A lot of the requests don't make it to full cases because the Arbs don't see enough evidence to warrant their looking at it. This one did. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Should SugoiCon con be restored to the active list then? Those dates on the official site mentioning Go!Daikocon are from 2014, and while we do not use Facebook groups as sources, there seems to be no signs of this convention returning aside from older "Well be back" posts. I personally feel that it could be moved to the defunct list and moved back later with no serious issues I.E. Anime South. Esw01407 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Esw01407: I wouldn't object if it were like July now. Seeing though that the convention is typically held at the end of the year I kept that in mind. if you want to put it as defunct you can I guess, but no announcement has been made anywhere and the website is still up and running. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm more then willing to compromise and re-add it to the active lists and check back later. Plus judging by the current trend, might be removing lots of conventions on the list in 2016, 2015 has been a rough year for cancellations. Esw01407 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay sure, for me I wouldn't mark it as defunct unless some kind of a credible announcement is made someplace or the website goes to the far off world of 404. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we should rename it to something more standard, so that we state where it occurred, as that is apparently standard procedure for these sorts of things, and that is why I had it at that place before I got the CSD message from EoRdE6. If so, feel free to move it, as I figured I would leave a message here instead of the talk page, since you might actually see it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered either way, as long as the title isn't too much of a mouthful. BTW, the only reason I CSD'd yours was because it was created some 10 minutes afterwards, not because of its name. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Already taken care of it looks like, im for naming standards though yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I figured as much, but I just found it odd since I would have redirected it. Either way, it works now, so thanks for the hard work! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Listen, I know that you don't want drive-bys, but I started editing and flagged the page and your reply was to remove my flags and tell me to go to the talk page. I already had, and your reply there was, "Six books are cited here, if you wish to expand upon the article to include "Western fetishisation of futanari" feel free to do so." C'mon, this is hardly good faith. I did go to the talk page and I am engaging there. Also, as I said there, the cites are dubious in many cases and outdated. Ogress _smash! 02:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right and I apologize. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:A Letter to Momo#Good article push. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	From one otaku to another. (´・ω・`) Sigehelmus (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! <'^-^'> - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up. An obvious ES fan seems to have the intention to recreate the character pages that were up at AfD a few weeks ago. Here, here, here and here. —Kirt^Message 10:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be a clear case of archiving the pages in case they come across more reception. I don't see any reason to be concerned or assume they are actually planning to recreate as they are.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Better to keep an eye on them as they were at AfD quite recently. It would be problematic if the user decided to recreate them for the sake of opposing the merger consensus. —Kirt^Message 14:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@KirtZJ: I will keep an eye out, if they are recreated they could possibly fall under CSD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The thread is here. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• KK, if I could think of a way to mention at ANI your completely inappropriate canvas of RO, without dragging her into more drama that would possibly get her indef block reinstated, I would. Since I can't, I'll just leave a message here. If you honestly believe she "needed" to be notified, you don't have judgement suitable to involve yourself in other people's issues. If you don't honestly believe it, then you risked her future editing career to try to get someone to come in and protect you. Either way, I think a ban from involving yourself in any issues that don't directly concern you is appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Floq, good luck formulating that, but you're right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.75.239 (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that I had read that you should not simply remove references just because the link was dead when I reverted your edit of Osama Tezuka, so I went looking and found WP:DEADREF. If you are sure that this reference is hopelessly lost and can not be replaced feel free to revert me. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 05:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Allen4names: I tried the wayback machine for the source but every image that they had was broken. I have been cleaning up the articles as of late, do you know of another internet archive we can use here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) I learned not to completely remove dead links but leave the history that they were there at a time. One possibility is to comment out the url (and the accessdate) and treat it as an offline source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks I will do that. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have used WebCite from time to time. Wikiwix could also be used as well as the {{Query web archive}} template. I was unable to find either an archived page or a good replacement but as I do not read Japanese I would not remove the reference per WP:DEADREF (link above). @Gerda Arendt: I have seen references get corrupted so I would not comment out an URL unless I had a replacement for the reference. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 15:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

My typical case is Gramophone, with open access for a while. It's still a valid offline source which has been printed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• FYI - that source is replaceable, but "kamisama" translate to "God" anyways. So it is redundant and not made clear in the text. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:A.D. Vision#B-Class?. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that you may have to be careful about if the more draconian proposals at ANI go through. Say, for example, Liz commented in a thread about Lightbreather (rather than you, as in this case) and then you posted the message linked above to Liz's talk page: a coded remark although it is, the thing would likely be unacceptable. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You can interpret it anyway you want, the job of an arb clerk though in my opinion isn't an easy one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure - the ambiguity is why coded messages sometimes work. But at least two people, excluding me, seem already to have interpreted it in a manner that is detrimental to your interests. As you should know from your involvement in umpteen disputes, what you mean and what other people think you mean are often very different. That is why you would need to be careful. I was merely trying to help you understand the ramifications because at present you are pretty much saying that you'll accept whatever sanction the community chooses to impose. And that's all from me: accept it, think about it, ignore it, do what you want. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't like seeing editors getting topic-banned or worst, therefore I've recommended that you be assigned a mentor. I believe if you agree to mentorship, you may avoid any topic-bans. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, I think you should not edit war to remove a comment at the WP:ANI thread in question: [5], [6]. You've been reverted by another editor. I'd leave it be. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I intend to leave it be, even though it has no relevant place in the discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Regarding your comments at WP:ANI in reference to the IP's comments. See the list at WP:NOTVAND, and compare to WP:VANDTYPES. They may have been one of the former, but definitely were not part of the latter. I am sympathetic that, per WP:TPG#Others' comments, the IP’s comments might be considered borderline harmful. As it says, “Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived”. Removing comments is a tough call, and one I don’t always get right - but I’m trying. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm requesting that you accept the mentorship idea. As a member of WP:RETENTION & a one-time drama-board junkie, I don't wish to see you heading down the block/ban road. I've been there before & it's not fun. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been through a topic-ban & a siteban, so I know what I'm posting about. I'm asking you 'one more time', announce at ANI that you'll accept mentorship. You must make concessions there or face a topic-ban. There's enough 'angry' editors there, to push one on you. GoodDay (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that you were told how many TFAs have no infobox, - I am not an expert, but noticed that at least one person appeared twice in the here-here-list , and that in May 2015 we had 1 of 31 articles without an infobox. - Talking infobox is a waste of time, but at least the facts should be right, - some may be history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is no consensus for it then I wont push the info-box issue any further. When I do research for things, Id rather it be for improving articles. I prefer infoboxes here though as I feel they offer better access and can give the reader quick info if needed without them having to read through the entire article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with better access, - my articles get infoboxes, and some made it to TFA. For some editors they are vandalism ;) - I try to stay away from the discussions, look at Chopin and Beethoven for samples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Be sure to use the cite web template for any citations, they have to all be consistent. Someone - not sure who, added an improperly formatted one. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I usually do, a-lot of people edited the page before it was protected but thanks for the advice =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate your help with cleanup, there must have been almost 50 edits in the first 10 minutes after the race. Take a look and see if you see anything else we missed! The retirement bit is a one-sentence paragraph at the moment, but I'm looking for RS on Baffert's comments that the horse is going back to Churchill Downs to rest and will probably race again later in the summer. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Kk87, there's a little known way to find interesting gnoming projects-- the Wikipedia:Orphaned articles by WikiProject page. The links take you to the de-orphaning section for the WikiProject cleanup pages. You don't really need prior knowledge of a subject area-- just pick anything that sounds interesting for you. It's a great way to expand your knowledge of unfamiliar topics. You can either branch out by trying different cleanup tasks on the same topic, or the same task across different WikiProjects.

There's probably enough to do at Cleanup listing for WikiProject Anime and manga just with de-orphaning, bare URLs, and dead links to keep you busy. It can be interesting to experiment with adopting these three uncontroversial tasks for a week or two in different WikiProjects, and see if you can find a WikiProject where one editor is able to keep the queue up to date.

Or, since you like lists, take a look at this tool for unasessed lists.

Developing enough WikiGnomes is actually the limiting factor in quality improvement. Original content can be generated at editing events, gnoming not so much. After a while with these more routine gnoming tasks you realize that there are lots of opportunities to work in peace and quiet which are actually really valuable for upgrading overall quality!

And one last thing-- the Africa WikiProjects are really underdeveloped, so if you pitch in there, your efforts will be especially significant. --Djembayz (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Im fine helping out at Cleanup listing for WikiProject Anime and manga, that's what I have been doing, if you check the history the cleanup articles are at an all time low thanks to a number of editor's help (myself included). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's been some great progress there! Didn't know you were already on this :) Enjoy! --Djembayz (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Overnight, I saw the new images of the 2016 Powerpuff Girls reboot and read about the new voice actors. Months ago, I signed a petition by a man named Matthew Coleman on Change.org to bring the Powerpuff Girls' original voices back and at the time it was progressing, it was shared by a former Cartoon Network representative. However although it made progress it didn't get through- but I don't know for sure! Anyway while the new pictures depict the new versions of Blossom Bubbles and Buttercup looking excatly like their original counterparts, but with two mediocre touches, I'm scared that once the new Powerpuff Girls series airs sometime next year it'll be just I'm imagining- Cartoon Network is gonna stop caring about the original Powerpuff Girls series that aired from 1998 to 2005, they and everyone else will take the original for granted, and pretend that it doesn't exist anymore- erase the original PPG series from Cartoon Network's history, as well as the original PPG website on cartoonnetwork.com because of the reboot. Remember the original 2003 Teen Titans series? Cartoon Network took that for granted after Teen Titans Go! premiered at they replaced it with Teen Titans Go!- even its website got replaced on cartoonnetwork.com! That's exactly what's gonna happen to the original Powerpuff Girls series once the new series comes next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If it happens it happens, there isn't much you or me can do about it sadly. I don't know why the original cast wasn't brought back, I do know though that the answer to almost everything is: Money. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope the original doesn't disappear when it comes. It's just that what I'm trying to say from this is what if I'm not ready for the revamped PPG series, I'm too scared to let go of the original and everything associated with it. Zboogie604 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Then don't let go of it, nobody is saying you need to or anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I just found out a few minutes ago that all 29 clips from the Powerpuff Girls original series have been removed from video.cartoonnetwork.com and all I saw were a few clips from Courage the Cowardly dog (see the link http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/video/ppg/). Could this really mean they're doing it for the PPG reboot or they're just switching video clips? Zboogie604 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs)

Hello, I started a move discussion at Talk:Tien_Shinhan#Requested_move_14_June_2015 in regards to having the article use Viz Media's official spelling. Since it is the same case as Freeza, I thought you might be interested. Xfansd (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks I will check it out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Knowledgekid87. 2015 attack on Dallas police, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 14:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't see this comment as overly serious, and I value civility as well, but it's a two way street. You can't expect civility but be uncivil, directly or indirectly (and as someone who is active in dispute resolution, I won't tolerate incivility of any description.). My advice is to really lay low. My experience with editors that have been previously sanctioned, or are under sanctions, is that some people may be waiting for them to slip up. Take my advice - just focus on your article work for a while. And, assume you don't have any (and we will not be having that conversation), but before you write a comment somewhere, try look at it from the point of view of your worst enemy - if they could find fault with it, ask me, or rethink it altogether. Just focus on your article work for a while, OK? (and please, don't archive this that soon). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will lay low as I really want to try to find another article to may a GA out of. What is civility though to you, and if you saw something that you thought was wrong would you just ignore it? As an admin you have to enforce civility as it is a core Wikipedia pillar so I would be interested in hearing your take. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you using the word insight repeatedly. Can you tell a bit more precisely what insight you received from looking at my talk archives as recommended? Just one comment - one insight perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to at the end of July, I took a quick look though and saw that you do a great job at DYKs - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, repeating: the task was to look for the (not many) entries by Eric Corbett, formerly known as Malleus Fatuorum. Helping with quotations (all excerpts):

• (first entry) ... Have to warn you though that ... I scare away women, children and new editors. Allegedly. But I'll try and be gentle. 1 Nov 2012
• Ironically, now that the lead's been expanded, I much prefer the uncollapsed infobox. 17 Mar 2013
• ... if I were a betting man I'd say it's quite likely that you'll be admonished ... I know from personal experience how difficult it is to see yourself being discussed for weeks on end, often unfairly, without any effective redress, so keep your chin up. 2 Sep 2013
• To be perfectly honest Gerda I'm not sure I'd encourage anyone to remain here. (same)
• (in reply to WIKI OUTCAST) It's a big club, and one I'm proud to be a member of too. 11 Sep 2013

Admirable civility and precise language and evaluation of politics, imho. Your turn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

...and have a group of editors pounce on me if I speak my mind no matter how civil I am? No thank you, not now anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@L235: Could you please remove me from the list? I cant comment on the case even if I wanted to. Thanks - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a clue why you restored dead links at List of The Qwaser of Stigmata manga volumes and List of Samurai Harem: Asu no Yoichi chapters. Every link that goes to Akita Shoten is dead and has been for atleast 4 years. Bgwhite (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: The website received an update is all, rather than retype the template for each instance I undid your edits and updated the links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You didn't redo the links. They are still are dead. Everyone I just tried were dead. Bgwhite (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I only did List of Samurai Harem: Asu no Yoichi chapters, the other I left the link in the form of a cleanup tag as it will take longer. The new links work for me on the former. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Next time, revert one article to your sandbox and work on it there. If I had a dollar for everytime somebody said they will work on it and never did, I'd be a millionaire. Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I jumped in and fixed the Japanese links. ;) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Thanks! ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Airdates again: It's time to standardize them once and for all. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the heads up! I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter but will go along with whatever consensus comes out of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are not entities which own pages or topics, they are not arms to exert peer pressure or power. If project members weren't so annoying every time I add a few hundred sources and fix dozens of problems the Wikiproject wouldn't have such an extensive list of "this need fixings now". Some of the problem comes from the fact that people who can't read or write the language feel compelled to insert their opinion on notability and such. I don't like people who find pleasure or take pride in dismantling good pages or sweeping problems under the rug by deleting/redirecting them. Problem is that is the natural tendency of too many people on the Wikiproject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: In my view redirects aren't deletions, there are a whole lot of other articles that need the attention much more. I have also added a lot of sources as well as fixed my fair share, the list of articles that need attention has been dwindling to all time lows. [7] If you want to help out, notability is a major issue (400+ articles tagged) I am currently working on sourcing and dead links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

To readers - blank and redirects are the same as deletions because the content is not visible or seen unless a person specifically finds the page, goes back to the unredirected page, clicks on the view history and finds the last version which had meaningful content. None of these actions are commonly known or employed by non-editors. Any anime series by a top-50 studio meets the GNG requirement - most top-500 idols/voice actors and such meet that as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Im wondering if there is a way there could be a category for redirects then so they aren't swept under and forgot about then. You are right when you say there is a breakdown to those who don't understand Japanese but if someone is passionate enough about a series I could see a GA article or two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Look - I'd love to help this project and I had basically dozens of content pushes ready to go - I have more than 40 books on hand, but having someone who cannot read or write follow me around and revert changes to something as simple as removing a spurrious N tag from Tezuka's works is beyond irritating. Editors like TheFarix do not understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be and that's the same issue Ryulong had. TheFarix called me a racist for no reason and won't apologize, instead doubling down like Donald Trump on a field day. You know why I don't have good relationships with members of this Wikiproject - its all the nasty emails from members of this Wikiproject and the hounding. As long as this place continues to be self-run by people who cannot read or write, then I won't be a part of this project because avoiding the main area doesn't help when you are being stalked and harassed. That's why.

And you are not one of the problems, but you are sometimes careless - as you removed valid well-sourced content in that cited posting from before. Just cause someone didn't cite inline doesn't mean its vandalism. I'm not angry, but I do get annoyed when very basic and sourced info gets removed. The biggest issue is that this project is on the defensive and its expectations and demands go far beyond reason. It is not a positive atmosphere if you desire to improve content and create pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Further note, Farix's actions like this which is the problem. It is in the official credit list on the English version. Is 30 seconds before you go warning a well-meaning IP editor too much to ask? Ryulong did this a lot and its why so much good work went to waste and so many people dislike Wikipedia. There is nothing fostering a friendly atmosphere or goodwill - its WARNING DON'T DO THIS OR YOU GET BLOCKED. Shameful? I think so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• @ChrisGualtieri: I have been staying out of the whole airdates debate and apologize for putting you on the spot. I don't like to be talked about behind my back though, yes at one time I did remove good content, I am aware of that but really I focus on where I am at now. If I see a series I like or that interests me that is what I put all of my heart and effort into. I haven't really had any problems with people from the anime/manga wikiproject as it is a big place with lots to do. I ask that you try to keep cool, and don't criticize editors if they make mistakes you feel are plainly visible, everyone has their moments and a gentle reminder is always better than chewing their head off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• If editors from this project weren't threatening others and violating WP:BITE then perhaps I'd be more pleasant. Also, what irritates me is that someone who cannot read or write carrying themselves with authority on an encyclopedia - don't you see the problem with that? The fact that such persons are really unable to search, identify and carryout WP:BEFORE because they don't possess such skills is the largest problem of WP:ANIME. Members of this Wikiproject actually have held the belief that "English-language" notability is required to meet WP:N and that Japanese Wikipedia should cover everything that doesn't. Such statements are beyond foolish and shows not just ignorance, but outright incompetence. I'd like to show some of these said members the proverbial door because these members were behind the original blank and redirecting series like Dragon Ball Z. Ryulong in particular fought for months to prevent the recreation of a stand-alone page. Stuff like that made me so disgusted with this project that I decided to go to WP:NRHP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you're invited and express your views on Talk:When Marnie Was There#Edits reverted without adding summary. Jotamide (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

On 10 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2015 attack on Dallas police, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an armored van was used in an attack on the headquarters of the Dallas Police Department? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2015 attack on Dallas police. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you spearheaded the Event history cleanup in Otakon, wanted to get your opinion on the latest set of edits that were added. Seems a large amount of history expansion was done using Otakon's Guidebook, a primary source that while not in dispute (most edits were location based), it still raises some issues similar to Event history. Esw01407 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Esw01407: I will take a closer look at it later today. The main question we should ask is do we want the event history presented in table or prose format? You are right when you say the information duplicates the event history, but I wish there was some kind of GA article related to a convention to compare Otakon to. I could see Otakon rising up the ranks if it were a bit more organized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Need your thoughts on List of Digimon Fusion characters. The current editor does not like my bold changes, but not sure what else can be done to structure the article better. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: The edits you made that are policy based (MOS) should definitely stay. As for the editor you placed your concerns on the talk-page but he/she may be in another time zone. I am semi busy myself, I will be more free about 5 hours from now or so, for now I would wait for a reply. If there is no reply in that time, I will revert the changes as I feel it is a case of WP:JDLI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I started another RM. Make your decision. --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In my mind, while making that edit I was voicing over a potential Administrator preferring to dodge adversarial editorial challenges over addressing them. I feel strongly about Administrators having the capacity to formulate and present arguments under duress; it is not an objection with any roots in personal or political qualities.

Obviously in reality I was making a real mess of things for more than a few people, looking like a clown, and it seems like I might not even get to help out with copyedit due to all this. So it goes.Jasphetamine (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jasphetamine: Innocent until proven guilty is what I am leaning towards here. I do apologize if editors find you suspicious, sock accounts (People who abuse multiple accounts) are a real problem here on Wikipedia. Even if someone is socking and gets caught and blocked it doesn't mean forever. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: It means a lot to hear a slightly more gentle tone in response to this. When I realized what I did I expected the editor/admin response to be targeted at a severe faux-paux, and was unprepared for seeing a growing consensus that I am a sockpuppet and the severe treatment one editor gave me.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my little dilemma greatly; thank you very much. Jasphetamine (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You are more than welcome =). If you want to ask questions I also recommend the WP:TEAHOUSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I'll not comment there again. Nice to hear from you! How've you been? RO^(talk) 15:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been okay here =), I got my T-ban lifted so it doesn't hang over my head anymore. Other than that, I have been mainly working on anime articles like before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, and I want to tell you how sorry I was to leave you hanging when that went down. There was so much pressure on me to keep my mouth shut at the time that I figured it wouldn't have done either of us any good if I added to the discussion. RO^(talk) 15:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Its okay no worries, I have distanced myself from leaping in though when it comes to WP:ANI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't commented there in more than five months, and I don't miss it! RO^(talk) 15:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Same here lol, I don't know how admins can handle it sometimes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I. Why would anyone want the responsibilities and frustrations? I guess we should be thankful for the good ones that are so badly needed. RO^(talk) 15:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you were totally right to suggest withdrawal, as it would have been much better for the candidate and the community. Continuing on well past any realistic chances for success put unnecessary stress on everybody. RO^(talk) 22:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If it were me a withdrawal would be better than an unsuccessful run, at least then one could look back and say "I wasn't ready" rather than having someone point it out to you. I disagree with one of the people opposing, I think Montana is still very much into wanting the admin job. Anyways, it will be over soon and everyone will go about their way success or no success. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the prod on Atsushi Kamijo as I was able to find media arts DB detail on the author and a few more ANN articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. 5.156.127.6 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid, please stop commenting on the RO situation. As I recall you were under some kind of topic ban regarding this kind of thing. Perhaps it has lapsed, but it would nevertheless be better to stop commenting because it makes things worse. I hope you'll consider staying away from it completely. Sarah ^(talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

My initial comments were addressed towards Montana, nobody else. It is up to her what she does with it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

See, KK87? Once they rally the usual troops via email there is nothing you can do but obey. It's a simple matter of numbers, and they almost always have superior numbers and the associated coordination needed to control almost every situation. I agree with, Sarah. It would be better for you to not get in trouble here, and there's nothing you can do to help really anyway. Don't worry about me. RO^(talk) 20:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: I have said my peace, my last bit of advice would be for you to continue editing away from Montana, you had been doing a great job for months. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I know it, but she keeps attacking: ([8]); ([9]), and nobody wants to officially ask her to stop. In 13 months of editing, there are exactly 2 articles that I've edited that MBW edited before me. RO^(talk) 20:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll notice the same group of editors are trained to rally to the cause in military-esque precision. You cannot win or even tie them. They know how to overwhelm their opponent, so I suggest you don't bother. Someday enough time will have passed that the cliques power will have faded, but until that time there's no sense getting involved with anything where you see one of them. RO^(talk) 15:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: I have known this for awhile now, you cant have a discussion with some people here without a flood of other editors rushing in to defend this is how "dramah" starts. I was lucky this time, I was able to have a decent conversation with Eric about the IBAN before others rushed in. Yes the IBAN might have effected Montana's RfA but comments like "Watching and eating popcorn" on a discussion involving a possible solution to a problem isn't helping either in my view. I wonder if admin have IBANS in place with other editors? I mean there has to be a case out there where an editor, and an admin don't get along and worked out a solution. I wonder if there is another way of going forward other than letting fate and chance decide. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We are out-numbered by an organized clique, so the only options are avoid them or leave. Someday, after a few of these people leave, balance will be restored, but in the meantime, they really cannot be stopped. I think their influence is already waning though, as their attempt to derail Liz's RfA failed miserably, and their attempt to push MBW through RfA failed just as spectacularly. RO^(talk) 16:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

At least one of them is pushing 70 years old, so I doubt they can maintain this level of indignant participation for too much longer. RO^(talk) 16:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thx for the help! Stay awesome! :3 I love love love anime/ manga too! My friend and I had a folder for it!

Glistensnow (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Aww, and thanks will do! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I admire your tenacity, but wonder if you aren't wasting your time. IMO, the crux of the rivalry has more to do with Jimbo's celebrity and Corbett's lack thereof than it has to do with an actual concrete issue that could be resolved. Do you really think they can come to an understanding? RO^(talk) 20:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, JW can't be blocked or banned. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting, but how does it relate to the feud? RO^(talk) 21:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It creates an uneven playing field. Nothing is more frustrating then being under topic bans and/or restrictions. Believe me, I know. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose so, but why would a grown man have such difficulty avoiding just one person and one topic, both of which he seems to despise? At some point the community will need to hold EC accountable for his actions like it does for everyone else. That's the only way this saga will ever end. Or, EC can decide to stop disrupting Wikipedia and go on with things he's good at, but he is consciously not doing that because of the reinforcement he gets when he acts out. If the enablers stopped their coddling, and EC just served his blocks like everybody else, we might be able to move past this. RO^(talk) 21:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom will have to decide for themselves, if an editor should remain or not. FWIW, EC never requested an unblock. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, he never requests an unblock, but he never needs to either, as so many of his supporters line up to do it for him. Has he ever asked any of the usual suspects to stop raising hell every single time he gets blocked? FWIW, I think he's a fine contributor who just isn't willing to play by the same rules as everyone else. Anybody else who behaved the way he does would be site-banned, so why shouldn't he? RO^(talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it'll be up to Arbcom. Personally, I don't support site-bans for editors, unless they're cronic vandalizers or sock puppeters. As for GGTF? I advised Arbcom not to ban anyone, but nobody listened to me :( GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I would rather not see Corbett banned, but isn't he forcing ArbCom's hand by refusing to abide by his sanctions? What choice is he leaving them? RO^(talk) 21:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

TBH, I don't know. It's EC's choice. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The biggest change I want to see is for editors on both sides to stop the encouragement. You may think you are helping defend but you are only making things more complex, ignoring if you can I feel is a better strategy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Truth. RO^(talk) 22:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. 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/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have offered a new name: "2015 Palestinian unrest"
Explaination to this, regarding concerns brought up by other users is the the offer's section. Please express your opinion on this name.
There is no use answering me here, it's better to answer me here: talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015)#M. 2015 Palestinian unrest --Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I was working on the schedule for Najica Blitz Tactics and it is quite crazy as an actual instance where the earliest airdates shifted across midnight. Can you take a look at the verbiage and see if it makes sense? Fortunately Media Arts DB has the right dates based on earliest broadcast. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You may want to heed Viridatis' advice, Kk87 & walk away from the ANI discussion concerning RO. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Im not topic banned anymore at this point this has been used time, and time again as a scare tactic. Notice that no other editor is bringing this up other than the one who wants to see RO banned the most. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just my suggestion. You're free to ignore it. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I know, and thanks for your help. =) Agreeing that a thread should be closed to me isn't trying to stir anything, I will refrain from commenting further though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• But you didn't, you kept on commenting for another 12 hours or so. How do you think your promise from June to avoid drama is working out? Are you still being mentored by User:Steven Zhang? --John (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am sorry to restore this but I would like you to answer the questions. Could you, please? --John (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No im not still mentored, the only ones bringing up my former topic ban are the ones who don't agree with what I have to say. I requested a closure of a thread, and stated an oppose opinion, now tell me what did I do there that nobody else has? Maybe you should be talking to those dropping the personal attacks rather than focusing on a months old issue. I will repeat, the ones causing the drama are the ones who blow something small into something huge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Do you think your involvement was helpful? --John (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
        • @John: If I were in there dropping profanities, and making jokes with titles such as "A terrifying scenario which must be faced unflinchingly"[11][12] I would say no. It wouldn't have mattered what I posted though, someone would still link but what about x when it comes to me. So to answer your question, yes I feel that because I provided a voice of opposition to the discussion in a civilized way it was constructive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm thinking about possibly getting the Lord Marksman and Vanadis article up to B-Class or GA status. I've been thinking about expanding the reception section and finding some sources with regards to the production of the anime, light novels and characters. Do you have any thoughts about this? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sjones23: It sounds like it would make a difference in favor of an article upgrade. I am also thinking that the plot needs to be looked at, and in addition the manga section seems short to me but that is just my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the plot should be looked at and needs to be trimmed down considerably, considering the fact that volume 13 is about to be released soon. We may need to expand the manga section too. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been following the series, but if possible the manga section table should look something like what is here: Himegoto. As for the plot, yeah it needs trimming down to comply with the MOS. Okay, I will look for reviews and start work on the articles tomorrow after I get off from work. I would start now, but I don't have my full awake brain with me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If you could help me find a better source for the article you reverted and help us construct a neutral and balanced Project, I and many others will appreciate it. :) I think the News section often gets overlooked by people's biases.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus: Can you find me any other news agency that agrees with what the source is saying? It is a WP:BLP issue as well which is one of Wikipedia's main policies. If there were a dual source I would feel better, but you cant leave something in the news with just one side's view per WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding that, I did find another article, but it seems to be a copy. If you could also check the other articles or something like the ToI sources...whatever. This is my first time adding articles to the News.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh nevermind, some busybody seems to have removed it anyway and always have bad luck in reversions. Not like that many people read that section anyway. You know, I only spend so much time here recently out of looking to distract myself.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus: Why not join the anime, and manga wikiproject and help out if you can? We are always looking for new members. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I literally just remembered who you are hah. I added your userpage to my watchlist (months ago, can you see that?) and I meant to thank you for your great edits and awesome taste. Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you have good taste as well, anyways the wikiproject link is here if you are interested ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You caught me totally off-guard, but sure. Er, do I need to sign up for a project or something or is it just a noticeboard or something? And um sorry for the weird tone earlier, I thought you were someone else at first I had a bad encounter with. I would be happy to help!--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, not really much just read Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga#Joining the project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus: It is a group of editors who work together to help improve anime/manga related articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think I need this actually, I'll read over all the links there. Also, do you happen to have Steam? It would be a pleasure to add you if so.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more detailed when you say Steam? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, Steam account? The gaming service network thing? http://steamcommunity.com/ I'm guessing no :(--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh no sorry, but I will take a look at it later tonight. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll enjoy it; even if your PC is only mediocre, there are many awesome free games you might like I can show you (and recently there was a Japanese indie game sale, for example a danmaku was only about $1). Thanks !--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Splay, I looked up Oricon and found two singles that charted: [13] I'm not sure if that's worth keeping around. They are both related to Hitman Reborn, then the article could be redirected to Hitman. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: If you want to redirect the article then feel free. Seeing the article is fully un-sourced anyways per WP:TNT someone can also always work on it in user-space in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure I understand your reasoning for redirecting this article to Young Champion. The only thing really wrong with it was... well it was a stub. But the way I see it, a stub with information, such as author and illustrator names, publication date, etc., are better than just a mention on another page with nothing other than the name of the series. Yeah the article needed some work, but turning it into a redirect seems like the exact opposite of the progress it needed. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 19:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

...... Hello? Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 00:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Schiffy: Try WP:USERFY or undo the redirect and add {{Template:New page}}. If you want to work on the article then work on the article if not then not having it in the main-space isn't hurting anything. The WP:BURDEN lies on you to provide at least some sources showing notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've been very hard-pressed to find good sources for Black Joke, aside from scanlations, which aren't exactly a "source". It certainly needs more than the work of one person, so Userfying wouldn't, in my opinion, be the best course of action. Using {{Newpage}} seems like the better option, at the moment. Thank you for your time. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 02:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I will be fixing the section when I have finished organising my sources. For example I have the 30th anniversary mook which has all the release/air dates.SephyTheThird (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, it looks like repeat info though that can be covered in the anime section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your question was closed before I could answer, but I would say that existing policy already covers it. Ritchie was too quick to unblock, the community spoke and said so. Some also think Berean Hunter was too quick to block. Singular things are just that, singular. If it formed a pattern, then an admin can be taken to Arb. Once it has been discussed, it is best to just move on. Ritchie should clearly understand that the community has some issue with the quickness of the unblock. I don't think it is a hanging offense, but as I've said on his talk page, we need less posturing and more patience. Now, you just wait and see. In the end, nothing was broken by all these actions, so it is best to not get overly excited by them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: This is why I feel that nobody including me pushed for another section regarding Ritchie. One editor pointed to a pattern, but nothing was conclusive. I will reference the thread though if another "cowboy" style unblock comes along though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I don't think I've ever had an apology on my talk page! That was really kind of you. You make Wikipedia a better place. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Thanks =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Knowledgekid87, just a friend note to advise that I have removed a comment of yours from the talk page, as we are having sectioned (not threaded) discussion on this case. There was no problem with the substance of your comment, and please feel free to create your own section there if you wish to contribute. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: Thanks, I had forgotten it was not threaded. I will not make my own thread though I just hope the discussion doesn't get too heated is all, but hey it is arbcom right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, I do think that heat and other nonsense are going to be the norm for this case. I do appreciate your understanding though! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Himari Noihara2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#RfC:_Anime_films_and_production_companies. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI Esquivalience hatted SC591's vote while I removed the number, thus it has been struck as unconstructive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you're even allowed to do that. And now he's reverted your and Esq.'s edits, so is this gonna be a war now? (In an RfA?) Personally, I think it's better to try and engage SC591 on the talk page and see if you can get him to remove his vote and comment on his own. If not, then perhaps you can get an admin to remove it. (also, I'm not sure why the two oppose vote's order was reversed, but I corrected that.) - ^theWOLFchild 03:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

fyi - I'm pretty sure this is an improper close, but I've said what I wanted to say there so I'm moving on. Just, don't be surprised if someone else reverts you. (as for me, I have no gripe with you.) Nice job at ANI btw. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 04:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw your discussion going on but I wanted to hat the thread to minimize others jumping into the fray. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

@Yamaguchi先生: Thanks you too. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey I noticed you've been going through dead links and trying to archive them. That kind of work is very underappreciated and of great value on Wikipedia. The process can be quite tedious since you have to check each link individually and hope that the Wayback machine caught it and a new domain owner didn't lock out the archives. (It also doesn't help that Japanese sites are atrocious at maintaining links) Keep it up! Opencooper (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Opencooper: Thanks! =) Yeah it is quite tedious but it opens up new anime/manga for me to browse upon while doing a helpful thing. I am also tagging sources which do not appear on Wayback, these will most likely have to be replaced by other sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed your comments. And ideally alternate sources will be able to be found for those for verifiability purposes. Opencooper (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of the dead links I am finding that I have noticed repeats of include TokyoPop, Amazon, Oricon, and eBOOK Japan. For TokyoPop, and Amazon hopefully ANN has release dates in their news section that would cover those. As for Oricon I know there is a way to fix the links I just don't remember how to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

For release dates, other resellers might also be usable in lieu of the original retailers. And I remember reading someone explaining how to find titles on Oricon on the WP:A&M talk page so it might be worth searching the talk page archives. Regardless, do keep in mind that dead links are permissible as sources so don't stress it too much since I doubt release dates are controversial. Opencooper (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Although I was one of the founding members of the New England Anime Society and am the admin for AnimeCons.com, I do not currently hold any positions on the NEAS. I am indeed on staff with Anime Boston, but only as Game Shows Manager and not in any sort of "executive" or "director" role. As far as AnimeCons.com being a "primary source", this page says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In stating the stats about Anime Boston, it's pretty easy for any person to verify since Anime Boston posts the same attendance numbers on social media every year. I put them on AnimeCons.com to make them much easier for people to find ...and there are really no other sources out there except Anime Boston itself and AnimeCons.com. It's not like someone is out there doing any sort of third-party auditing for attendance at anime cons. It's quite likely that any other article you'd find attendance numbers in would have pulled them from AnimeCons.com anyway. ...so the tag that "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." on the Anime Boston article is pretty unnecessary. It's not like anyone is saying the facts presented are not accurate. PatrickD (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@PDelahanty: I have no problems with Animecons.com as a source, and would not encourage anyone to remove it from the article. The problem is that in general the article needs more third party sources. Okay per your discussion here I have removed my hidden comment there must be something though that was picked up by the globe or even by the Metro. On a different note I have been going to Anime Boston since 2007, and want to thank you for what you do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few articles in major area newspapers if you'd like them... http://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts-entertainment/blog/2015/04/03/anime-boston-2015-guide/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2015/04/03/anime-boston-draws-costumed-crowd-hynes/pLP3PPR7meuAQd8xYqfaRI/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2015/04/02/animeprep/f0WtCjvsDvZQr9xwXvcSKN/story.html http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/laserorgy/archive/2010/04/05/anime-boston-10-improving-but-not-growing.aspx PatrickD (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have special powers bestowed, giving you special rights to close discussion sections, like you did here on Talk:Syrian Civil War yesterday? If people want to have a discussion somewhere, why forbid them to do so? If you suggest that the topic has been discussed before, you at least could have the politeness and helpfulness to tell us where and when that took place. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It takes a great deal of maturity and courage to do as you did here. I sincerely applaud you!

I came across this only because I have User talk:SPUI watchlisted. SPUI's long gone, and I didn't really know him. I don't remember why I ever watchlisted his talk page in the first place. I think he was controversial in his time. That said, he did do a considerable amount of work for the project. Thus, my thought when I saw the notice of the RfD was that there must have been a reason why SPUI would have created such a redirect. That set me to clue finding. I did not see an immediate reason why such a title should be connected to Rejected. This should be corrected in the target article. This is obviously how you, Largoplazo and Lenticel all concluded it was a hoax/vandalism. Searching the web for this title, associated with Rejected, is what lead me to find the crucial information.

Just a mild suggestion; when placing something for deletion (whatever it is), have a look to see when it was created. I tend to do this with things that seem suspect to me. My thought is that if it has been around for years (as it has in this case; 2005), there's probably something to it that needs more looking into.

The Rejected shorts are to me a very base form of art. I really don't see any redeeming qualities to them. Perhaps it's a failing of mine that I can't see through to why these shorts have gained fame. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks, I had actually heard of the "My spoon is too big" clip via youtube I will do more digging next time. As for the fame yeah I tend to agree the films were okay but nothing that said Bill Plympton to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Would you be kind enough to answer the question I posted on Hillary Clinton talk section. I appreciate it! P.S.: I am fairly new at this so any advice is appreciated. TheAce11912 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Please be careful of undoing several edits with one click, such as this one. The comment was still unsigned. Thank you. — Wyliepedia 09:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@CAWylie: Thank you for letting me know, I did the rollback as the page went against WP:BLP in lieu of a death hoax. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this template edit, what counts as an anime convention? If a convention has an element of video gaming, even if it is Japanese video gaming, does this disqualify it as an anime convention? Where does manga make things fall in this spectrum? What about other non-anime content?

All things considered, perhaps Anime Banzai shouldn't be listed in this template as it has large sections of its convention dedicated to card gaming and video gaming. Anime Expo should be removed as it has "table top gaming, competitions, an arcade, and concerts." So too should Nan Desu Kan which features a large arcade/console gaming area, furry panels, and a dedicated tabletop gaming area.

Nz17 (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nz17: It depends on what the convention is labeling itself as. Most anime conventions have gaming, roleplaying, and such but are not advertised as a Gaming convention. @TheFarix: is the person to ask as well as he might have additional info/advice to offer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Thanks. I was just confused about the classification. I saw this over at Category:Multigenre conventions:

"Note to editors: Please use this category for conventions that focus on three or more genres. Conventions with just two genres, e.g. science fiction and fantasy, should instead be placed in the categories for both the relevant genres."

Nz17 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My poll now includes you as well. That's 2 for Sanders. 1 for Hillary. MEO 100%. I need you to come take a picture with us.

Hey im all for a good joke, your edit was pretty funny lol but this isn't the best place for it unless you want to get blocked from editing. You should try editing the Unencyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that's fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.125.244 (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I see you've decided to switch the source from Green Papers to the New York Time. Waiting until the discussion was over would've been nice, but at least make sure to leave a source for every contest. Right now, the source you've given for Democrats Abroad and Northern Marianas link to "American Samoa", and that source doesn't provide the popular vote. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 07:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: In the event of a switchback I would be more than happy to take responsibility, and switch the numbers/sources back to the way they were. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat related, some of the edits (including yours) have been mentioned on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4chktv/wikipedia_page_on_democratic_primary_2016_removed/ Just a heads up in case some of your changes are undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneBGoode (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Thanks for the change from "American Samoa" to "Non-state results", but the problem remains that no source is given for the popular vote. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There has to be a source out there somewhere, I will do some looking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

TGP has it ;) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure who to thank, but I saw your post on the section so I would like to thank you for having settled on a source with other users. We will use the Green Papers until official results are announced. Just hope there wasn't too much of a fiasco, as I was the one who first asked the question! Nike4564 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Re your message: I thought about salting it, but then it would inevitably be written under a different name. Leaving it unsalted acts as a canary and the deletion history makes it easier for other admins to figure out who it belongs to. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: Okay fair enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the SPI archives. It moved as least once before from Criticism of Weekly Shōnen Jump. I salted it, so it will appear somewhere else now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well the good news is that there are only so many title combinations out there that can be used. In each case it will be picked up via new articles that need patrolling. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

	i do know that
	i do know that but he is not understanding. i did the right thing and there was no wrong. IF I EDITED wrong i would say sorry but there is nothing with it. if you are so understanding pls tell him for me as i PERSONALLY FEEL HE LIKES TO ANNOY me. ALL MY EDITS i DO CAREFULLY.. i do not do trash edits AonoTsukune95 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@AonoTsukune95: Before making this kind of an edit, [14] please first have a discussion on the editor's talk-page. If you do not receive any communication (Wait 24 hours for a reply as time zones vary) then try bringing it up at WP:ANI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

well he just undo all i edited yesterday, so you tell me what is wrong?

as i said i do not do trash edit. everything i do i do my best. i correct sentece my own sentence/grammar. provide info without spoiling as much as possible. IF I DID do wrong i get it...the thing that is funny is that nothing is wrong. so i feel he just likes to annoy me. I CAN 100% ENSURE YOU that I WILL AND NEVER DO TRASH EDIT like many other editors. i have my own standards.

THIS CAN GO ON FOREVER IF he do not be more understanding and he call himself a senior editor/wiki editor. cannot even recognise good edits and shit edits AonoTsukune95 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

forgot to mention this btw

and you said keep cool? i do try to be calm but when he keep reundo what i do it piss me off. funny thing like i said all edits i make is off good quality. i never make unecessary edits. EVERYTHING I DO is TO MAKE BETTER READING.

so it kind of annoys me if he wants to go on that way. i will try to cool it but no promises if he intends to keep reundo my good edits and when shit edits happen he does not reundo it.

JUST WOW....WOW.....WOW..... AonoTsukune95 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

are you ok?

huh?? that info was provided by me. i can remove it. what gives you the right to do it when it was done by me?? i am undoing it for the last time. please understand that it was provided by me and i wish to retract it AonoTsukune95 (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC) |}

The Death of Prince AFD was improperly closed. For one thing, non-administrative closures are to be done only in non-controversial AFD's. This is far from it. The AFD was also improper because the Reactions of the Death of Prince was nearly simultaneous with the Death of Prince AFD. Since the Reactions of the Death of Prince was a redirect to Death of Prince, Death of Prince cannot be deleted or redirected. If that were the intent, then the Reactions to the Death of Prince, which was closed first, would be a direct redirect to Prince (musician). Furthermore, a DRV is ok if there is a significant change. I suspect there will be when Prince is declared to have an overdose in a few weeks. With all that, DRV would definitely be appropriate and a win for the article.

I fully realize that many people don't like that article. But that is displeasure at Wikipedia and Prince should not be punished for that. Those people should have a community wide discussion about Wikipedia. If they only want stodgy articles like that found in a book version of an encyclopedia, I would happily live with it.

In the interim, I am starting a bold test to see how much can be merged. I suspect Softlavender and his friends will remove it, being the contentious and aggressive bullies they are. I also plan to start a section on the talk page of Prince (musician) about possible new ideas and news articles about Prince's death. That way, we will have research materials in one place. That is a square wheeled way to edit and is like editing with the secret police standing behind you (inhibits boldness and reduces participation) but that will have to do. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)