User talk:Knulclunk/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

That's quite an argument I'm getting into with Tvoz on the KS talk page, isn't it? Equinox137 10:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah. I'm gald you guys reached a consensus. I think using the terms "killed" and "killing" are fine too. You are correct, articles need to be just the facts, as agreed upon by most journalists, historians and the public at large. Then proceed with agruments about causes and fallout from the different perspectives involved.
I have written a big argument on why we need to change the name of the photo, I'll post it in a day or two. --Knulclunk 14:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your edit to delink the Globe editorial. Perhaps there is another way in which it can be referenced? DJ Silverfish 06:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A Wiki-Eldar told me to be BOLD with my edits, so I have renamed one of the most powerful images of the last 100 years, John Filo's photo of the Kent State shootings, because I thought the file name was too POV for Wikipedia. I retilted "Kent State massacre.jpg" to "Kent State shootings.jpg". --Knulclunk 06:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears my editing was reverted! Hmm.. very tacky. Please join the discussion.
--Knulclunk 01:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that you've been deeply involved in discussions about Kent State. Can we get you to weigh in on the photo renaming discussion? If you think that the edit is too minor, feel free to decline.--Knulclunk 16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Done Equinox137 08:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my link to a disambig page at British NVC community W9. All the best. SP-KP 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Beacon Hill, Ash should refer to European Ash. SP-KP 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put in my two cents. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. -- Natalya 01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Knulclunk,

thanks for your kind words. I replied on my talk page, as usual (leaving a note here in case you didn't notice the top "warning" there :-)). I also seize the occasion to say that I missed your question about Kent State massacre.jpg; unfortunately I'm very unfamiliar with the subject so I wouldn't have been of much help, but that's not the reason why I didn't reply: the reason is that for some reason I just didn't notice your post. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, we really do not agree on this. To my mind there is no reason to have cryptically short entries on the list - some people are not going to read the long articles, and they should get a thumbnail description of what happened and what the context was, and who committed the act, etc. For Bloody Sunday, for Kent State, for any of them. You've given no reason at all to shorten these entries. As for Kent State, I'm not going to get into a debate with you again about what happened there. The facts are clear - the students were not armed - right, armed meaning with guns that fire bullets that can kill people, the normal definition of "armed" - and some guardsmen turned in unison and shot to kill. And they did kill 4 people. And they wounded 9, with one so seriously wounded that he remains paralyzed 47 37 years later. Think what that means, won't you? You say that saying that is a ploy for "sympathy" - I am appalled that anyone could make a statement like that and I am not going to argue with you again about this, just register my dismay that someone could be so out of touch as to think that this is not an important point. I do not know why you are so hell-bent on sanitizing this event - it was a massacre - I am not the only person who thinks so - you've been shut down over and over on this but you keep coming back on it, I don't know why. Please leave it alone. I really don't want a fight - but you seem to. Can't you please move on? Tvoz | talk 02:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And yes, this probably should be on the list talk page. Tvoz | talk 02:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Grrr! Why do you insist that I am unsympathetic to Kahler's injuries? It is just that his injuries, however tragic, has no bearing on the massacre list at all. Look at what surrounds the Kent State entry. Good Greif! read Srebrenica massacre again!

On The definition of massacre:

A massacre is when we go house-to-house killing unarmed women and children, like Haditha.

Or we take all the men in town to a warehouse and execute them with a bullet to the head or grenades, like Srebrenica.

Or we move from room to room, murdering cringing students, like Columbine .
Or, Darfur, or Sierra Leon, or Cambodia, etc.

Massacre involves the deliberate hunting down and murder of victims, usually women and children.

Massacre is when people are murdered in their homes and beds.

Massacre is when the killing continues until there is no one left to kill.

Massacre involves intent, numbers, brutality and time.

On the “list of massacres” Kent State ranks bottom (4), under the Boston Massacre (5), which had it’s own name created for propaganda reasons 200 years ago and probably should not technically be on the list either. When compared to killings of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of innocents, Kent State is simply a different scale of event.

Why do I feel so very strongly about this?

1. The term is not neutral

• Almost every instance the term “Kent State Massacre” is used in a prejudicial context.
• Almost every non-prejudicial context prefers the term “Kent State Shootings”

2. Use of the term in incorrect, to the point of being dangerous.

When people use a word like massacre (or racist, or fascist or “hate crime”) in an overreaching way, it weakens Wikipedia. How do you confront real Fascism, the kind that rounds your family up in the soccer stadium, when you’ve been using the word to moan about a Republican Candidate? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously, if you call people racist at the drop of a hat?--Knulclunk 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it do you. You brought up sympathy, not me - you said "I think that the "permanant paralysis" is an unnecessary dig for sympathy." As far as I'm concerned, if you can say that, there is nothing more to talk about. I disagree with you and will fight it if you try to remove Kent State from the list. That is all. Really, I am not going to debate this again with you. I don't care what your personal views about massacres are, ok? Stop it already. Leave it alone. FInd something else to get involved with. Tvoz | talk 06:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Kind of sounds like she kicked you out of the discussion, Knulclunk.... Equinox137 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your suggestion on citations/references on the talk page. Essentially, i strongly support your proposed goal, but suggest another method to get there. Merbabu 01:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied, I agree with you. Good call.--Knulclunk 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Two responses for ya: [1] and [2]. Have a good day. :) --Thaddius 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the writer who originally posted the article on Susan Block which I believe you flagged for possible “deletion,” questioning its “notability” and “neutrality.” I am a professional journalist, but this is my first Wikipedia article. I tried to make the article as neutral and factual as possible, using “neutral language” such as I have seen in other Wikipedia articles. I wrote about a subject that is more “notable” than many of the subjects I have read about in Wikipedia, in terms of fame and contributions. Could you please be more specific about what the problems are? I would be happy to adjust whatever needs to be adjusted to make this article more “Wiki-friendly,” and I appreciate your help. Davidross1943 01:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that there is no references listed outside of her websites. Most of her websites seem to be doorways to her business ventures. If her insigts into human sexuality are notable, her works should be mentioned in mainstream publications, outside the porn industry. Who says her parties are "well known"? Do non-paid actors go to them? What is this "Great American Think Off?" I see that you made that entry too...
If her notable contributions, such a Yale Sex Week, her radio show, and Bonobo culture are important, do we really need to list every nasty sounding DVD she produced? I know that WP is filled with useless stuff, but check Wikipedia:Notability (people). The Biography part is meandering, if the article is going to stay it needs to be tightened up alot. --Knulclunk 02:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I will work on this. Davidross1943 02:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added more outside sources as references, and eliminated a lot of details, subjective language and several DVD titles. I tightened up each biographical section, tried to make it more objective and neutral. What do you think now? Davidross1943 02:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Conflict of Interest" and "notability" tags. I think the article is better. Since I did not place the original NPOV tag, I'll leave that for another editor to review. The reference links help. You still may want to source "known for her bacchanalian celebrations"... --Knulclunk 03:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly good at this sort of thing, so I hope this gets to you. Yes, this is a new logo that's been adopted, part of a number of changes that are coming to our various websites. Do I know you? Kenneth Tanner 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Know me? Probably not. I've been in the CEC and have worshiped at several CEC churches. Currently I worship in a Catholic parish. The main CEC page is on my watch list, so I notice any changes that happen on it. I had an Adobe Illustrator version of the old CEC logo for some previous production work that I was considering converting to .svg for Wikipedia. I guess I don't need to do that now!

Ah well, I always liked to old logo...God bless! --Knulclunk 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not the official logo, just one that you can use. The old one is still the official one. Kenneth Tanner 01:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You should restore the old logo until the new one becomes official.--Knulclunk 02:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Knulclunk,

I saw that you reverted my removal of Waco. I can understand the sentiment, but do you mind filling me in on what your rationale is?

From my perspective, the definition of massacre used for the article is fairly clear:

Below is a list of incidents that either meet the criteria of resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event, or that are commonly labeled as massacres.

Though a large number of civilians died as the result of the government raid, I don't think we have enough compelling evidence that it was deliberate. Thoughts?

Regards,

Djma12 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Per CovenantD's comments on the discussion page, I am about the remove this section again. However, I didn't want to do so without giving you a chance to rebut first. Thoughts? Djma12 ^(talk) 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The heat is picking up on the KS talk page again. Check it out.... Equinox137 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh...the talk page is suppossed to be for the article, not the event itself. I'm quite agnostic about the events, and the current article seems pretty solid right now. Tvoz obviously has an emotional stake in the article, but she seems to know her facts. If her POV can be contained, the main article has enough baby-sitters to be safe.

My only concern is this Terry Norman stuff. Has he always been a part of the article? Seems laced with conspiracy and the Freetimes source is suspect, at best. WP is a place for fact, not for Smoking Man theories.--Knulclunk 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha....I didn't know Tvoz was a female. I've heard of Terry Norman before and it would seem that if he did fire his weapon, that would have sparked the whole thing. It's not necessarily a smoking man theory, because the Battle of Lexington (April 19, 1775) started the same exact way. To this day, no one knows who fired the first shot in the Revolutionary War. Equinox137 05:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:Defender 911 may be offensive or unwelcome. In case you are the user, please login under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, particularly to userpages. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. --Defender 911 12:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

jeez! It's a talk page. Sorry! --Knulclunk 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your editing was fine! An independent category is great! I just edited the word choice and thought I should inform you. You're doing an excelent job! --Defender 911 13:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you edited a lot onto this page, but the page seems vanity, related to the artist Josignacio. I mostly bring this up because there was a blast of Josignacio links onto the Abstract Expestionist article this morning, as well as art other pages throughout WP. I think we may propose it for deletion, as it has no external sources. --Knulclunk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is definitely not established in the article. --sparkit^TALK 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Looked like a copyvio to me. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help on this article. I really need an outside opinion! --Defender 911 00:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You were joking about Beaver being such a "non-controversial" article, right? It's probably the target of every junior high student in North America, like any other sexual slang word. Sorry, just had to ask. :) --Risker 04:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. And every elementary school kid uses it for a book report. Lets throw a semi-protect on it. If someone really needs to edit it, they can get an account. --Knulclunk 04:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I know from your philosophy of inclusionist for all things wiki, but that comment has a political and religious agenda. If you think it should be included, include as a subsection of regrets/etc or BETTER YET, put it in a criticism section. Transexualism should be about the facts, I think its POV to say that this christian minister backed out if and has "several stories" of post-opt transgenders who regret it, says who? Were is the sources except from his website - which has an agenda - ITS POV, how you can add something so clearly POV is beyond me. Most trans do not regret it. If you look at the whole section is POV in that it most of it writes speculation without hard scientific facts, it seems to start out objective and then goes in wild speculation without the facts, you can include opinion in wikipedia as far as I remember. It deserves a tag in that section. ForrestLane42 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I agree, most of the "regrets" section is speculation, as well as the "stealth" section above, which reads like someone's personal journey, unsourced, and POV. Huge parts of the article are filled with "many believe" or other weasel words. Read through the sources at the bottom again... many of the links are solidly POV and also have an agenda to push, yes? Perhaps we'd feel more comfortable adding Leach's website to the "external sources" at the bottom? It should be labeled clearly, though, so users don't feel ambushed if they click it.

As far as ripping the POV out of the rest of the article, eh, it's not my battle. I surfed into your talkpage through another user/topic, and perceived that my opinion was requested. :) --Knulclunk 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in concurrance with what you said above. ForrestLane42 00:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

On reflection, I think the "external Link" section is actually asking for more trouble. I'm going to try to reinsert the Leach note with a less POV slant while acknowledging Leach's obvious perspective. It is clear that many people and publications cited as references for this article have a strong opinion or agenda. --Knulclunk 16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Knulclunk

Sorry to trouble you. A difficult dispute is taking place on the Bob Dylan Talk Page [[3]] with Bus stop who simply refuses to believe Dylan was ‘born again’, and who deletes all changes I make to the text, and all references. I would be grateful for your opinion. Thanks Mick gold 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the conversation. Inserting language saying there "was no conversion", seems to be agenda pushing on Bus Stop's part. But, Bus Stop is correct, it is not appropriate overstate Dylan's Christian experiences either. His statements and the public's response are record enough, and his public faith in those years are only a small part of his total contribution to society (which is the only part that needs to be in an encyclopedia, yes?)

Remember, Wikipedia is not a format for evangelizing.

Also, a lot of people move in and out of churches (especially Vineyard), the specifics of the events are fairly non-notable.

If it upsets some people to use the word "conversion", than leave it out. Everyone will know what "heavily influenced by Christianity" means.

--Knulclunk 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to reply. Like you, I think the NYT quotes are good. I must admit I'm encouraged by what Walkerma (whom I believe plays a major role in controversies on validity of references) wrote on Bob Dylan Talk Page [[4]]:

I really don't see what the problem is here. Wikipedia is nothing to do with things like "Christianity has won a victory over a Jew". Wikipedia should focus on the documented facts which (as Mick Gold has shown) clearly show that Dylan converted to Christianity at this time. There is nothing controversial here, it's been well documented, it's NPOV. If there is an authoritative article or book which claims otherwise, these could be mentioned as "Some have claimed...^REF". Walkerma 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

best wishes Mick gold 07:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to your note -- The South Harlem name has certainly been adopted by some real estate brokers, property developers, and townhouse owners south of 125th Street. There was an article in New York Magazine a few months ago that used the term, discussing the rapid gentrification of the Mount Morris Park historical district, if I recall correctly. And there is a condominium development going up on 118th street called the "SoHa 118," where SoHa is an attempt to "SoHo-ize" the South Harlem moniker.

That said, I don't see any reason to discuss this neologism on the page. While "East Harlem" represents a region that has been seen as culturally distinct for fifty or 100 years, I don't see that "west Harlem" or "south Harlem" can make the same claim. Uucp 12:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Knulclunk - I noticed your message to Deborah-jl when I stopped by her talk page today to see if she was off wiki-break yet - but she is still 'away' so nothing seems to be happening with the Children's Literature Wikiproject. Award-winners is my area of expertise, but I don't have time to do a great deal on Wiki at the moment. Do you know how - if you think it's a good idea - we could maybe try and get the project going again and perhaps organise a few more of the people who are signed up to it to start doing things again??? Well done on your work on Caldecott winners, BTW. Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - thanks for the reply - I just wondered if you had any more time than I do - probably not!?! - to try and motivate some of the others signed up on the Children's Literature Wikiproject to get it going again. After your great work on the Caldecott winners, did wonder if you could do something similar for the Newbery; Coretta Scott King; Boston Globe/Horn Book etc. awards? Just an idea of mine, no pressure... Best - Abbeybufo (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What was the breast implants listing all about? I thought it was a humorous little addition to the page, but from your edit summaries, I'm unsure what you were trying to do. --C.Logan 04:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I did it to be funny, but thought that others in the discussion might be too uptight.

I don't have the patience to read all these really long entries... blah blah blah.

I like lists, as long as they are sourced and impartial.

Should WP not have the List of people with breast implants because breast implants are icky? private? silly? the list will always be incomplete? What if someone has them removed? If the list is heavily weighted to porn-stars, does that mean editors of the list have a pro-porn agenda?

What makes someone notable on this list? I haven't heard of 1/3 of these people... Do we need to distinguish between cosmetic and reconstructive? Whatever.

The Christian conversion list will stay. I can't believe that any serious person would think that WP has a pro-Christian slant. lol. But I suppose that's what makes it a debate, eh? --Knulclunk 05:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't say "vast majority of US psychiatrists living", or "It was pretty clear", unless you have the statistics to back it up. Those are totally peacock words. --Knulclunk 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thought I had deleted it, but I evidently accidently reverted your deletion, instead. Guess the server was running behind. Sorry. Yaf 05:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Dfrg.msc 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Knulclunk. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Fujikawa BabyAnimals.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Knulclunk/Sandbox Fujikawa. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

got it--Knulclunk 11:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad we agree on the Kent State edit. I didn't see the lurid stuff the user put in, re rape and mustard gas. Bellagio99 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think that was your m.o. I almost dropped you a line.... :) --Knulclunk 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just logged in and saw your note on my talk page. I'll be over to take a closer look when I get a chance. --Girl.at.bat 22:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think the Action News stuff was fine, if it can be sourced. We you please discuss it more fully on the Talk:WBAL-TV page?"

I did a complete revert because the additional sub-headings were unnecessary. If a section is comprised of just one or two paragraphs, most of the time there is no need to create separate sections. To me, that was the case both here, and at WMAR-TV as well. Also, both of those articles are lacking enough text to warrant additional sub-sectioning.

I'll look over the previous versions again, and see if the additional stuff can be re-incorporated into the text. Rollosmokes 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Knulclunk 03:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

After looking over it, it is my opinion that the info isn't notable enough to re-add into the article. Other than what we know about his relationship with Jessica Savitch (despite how one may feel he was depicted in that Lifetime movie), Ron Kershaw wasn't well-known enough to warrant mentioning him here; I doubt there should be an article about him on Wikipedia as well. To say he was a "genius" can be stretching things, as he certainly didn't leave a mark on television journalism from behind the scenes as, say, Al Primo or even Joel Cheatwood. Also, there was a bit of redundancy in one line ("Baltimore's Action News briefly replaced Channel 13 as the number one news station in Baltimore during the mid-seventies"). For these reasons, the WBAL-TV article should remain as it is for now. Rollosmokes 06:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to be even-handed. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Magic Johnson theaters opened in 2000. I have pulled many interesting articles on Harlem, 1970-present, and will use them to make many more improvements over the next few days. I need to add much discussion of the city's selling off its inventory of real estate (which was, by 1970, over 60% of all the residential real estate in Harlem), plus a bit of the story of the Apollo, and crime fighting. When it is all finished and polished, I may propose the article for Featured status. Uucp 11:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Noted Harlem Photographer is Dead," C. Gerald Fraser, New York Times, May 16, 1983

"James Van Der Zee, the photographer whose pictures chronicled the life of Harlem for half a century, died yesterday at the age of 96...."

Shame on the Studio Museum if they say he was still working in 1984. Uucp 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sgilliam.jpg was tagged as not having a copyright tag for 7 days (which from looking at the deleted history, is true). No notification is required for that tag. I didn't tag it, I merely deleted it from the backlog. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your first question, no there is no way to see page histories after they've been deleted as a non-admin. In response to your second question, it wasn't the fairuse rationale that was the issue, it was the lack of a copyright tag. If you want, I can restore it, you can pick an appropriate tag from that category, and we can move onward. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I want ahead and re-deleted it. Just ask if you need anything else. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eskimo pie box.jpg undeleted. Cheers, Daniel 04:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Knulclunk 04:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, flickr users can change the license and remove/hide images at will, which is the whole point of the flickr review system: To verify the license of the image. The general rule we're going by is that images that are reviewed within 2 weeks and the license is not free on flickr or hidden/deleted can be speedy deleted. After two weeks, if they are not used, they can be speedy deleted. Once flickr reviewed, the images can stay, even if the flickr user changes the license or deletes/hides them. You could try and talk to the flickr user and see if the will either upload the image to Commons or make it available on flickr under a free license. I will be happy to flickr review on-demand if you are able to get this to happen. (I will flickr review on-demand if asked for any image too, though the bot has typically been getting to them within a day or two). Sorry. MECU≈talk 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you want. Can you please try and explain it again? MECU≈talk 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[5] says it's unavailable to me. The image still can't be restored. You could make it public for a day and I can review it and once it is reviewed, you could re-privatize it if you would like. MECU≈talk 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I had someone else try and see if they could see the image and they couldn't either. It might be marked for friends only or something of the sorts on flickr. MECU≈talk 12:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I posted that someone else said they could see it. Turns out I had some filter setting that didn't allow me to see it. I have restored the image and flickrreviewed it. Sorry for the hassle. MECU≈talk 12:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. --Knulclunk 14:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help with Wikihermit. He wants to leave the WikiCommunity! --Defender 911 14:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. No, I don't have a public domain image of her. Griot 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the email!

I'll will see if I can get fekner's photo.

Best-

incantation

Hello Knulclunk,

Sorry to bother you.I believe you edited the John Fekner page.

Looks good.

Whenever you get a chance, can you give the new changes a look over? I don't know why the word 'edit' appears to look a bit weird on some text on the right side by Early Years

Have a good weekendIncantation 23:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a non-standard monitor this week. I'll check it out when I get home.--Knulclunk 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new here, I just thought that something that everyone knows and has multiple google hits was good enough to add to a new article. So how many sources should you have before adding to an article? In 10 sec I found at least 5 sources from the news media about the photo alteration.

So for every change you need 10? -- AperfectHell 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said on AperfectHell's talk page - I don't think the question is whether there was a doctored photo circulated - let's assume for the moment that his sources are reliable and indeed there was such a photo. What is needed, then, is a sourced, reliable, NPOV assessment of why it is significant and notable - on its own it's just a missing pole, perhaps done with esthetics in mind or who knows why. Historians and others (including Filo perhaps) may have talked about why this is significant, and if that explanation is reliably sourced, it should be included. The picture on its own doesn't give enough information to claim notability and inclusion in the article. Tvoz |talk 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Relplied on User talk:AperfectHell --Knulclunk 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• To get all the talk in one place. Your initial entry implied that the altered photo first appeared in 1995, which conflicted with the entry on the John Filo page. The new entry, both sourced and having examples is much better. Notice that the Filo page places the alteration at the Time-Life library and the revelation in 1995.

• Actually the original entry said, "that Over the years an altered photo of Filo's Pulitzer Prize Winner has been circulating around and has been reprinted by many magazines". I never implied that LIFE was the first to print it but I guess it be could read wrong. -- AperfectHell 03:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to Wacky Packages: I think you were right to remove the 3 wikilinks that you did, BUT NOT because they were red links, as your edit summary stated. If the linked term is significant to the subject and ever likely to have an article in the future, the red link should stay. In this case I think you probably judged correctly that the artist you delinked are probably never going to have pages. ike9898 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is my assumption as well. If one of the red-linked artists does get a page, I have no doubt that resourceful editors will re-link them back to Wacky Packs.--Knulclunk 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in regards to your many copy-pasted deletion opposition notices, first of all please note that the usage of non-free images is supposed to be restricted only to what's necessary. Given that, each use needs to be examined in context. I'm not opposed to the use of screenshots, but we need them to back up statements made in the article so that they make things clearer for the reader (i.e., you might imagine the reader thinking, "Oh, that's what they meant!"). Most of these that are nominated for deletion just show the artist's face, which really doesn't help. Does that make sense? Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I only posted deletion opposition to videos that were directly discussed in the associated article. Even a headshot can convey the "look" of the musician at that time in their career, hairstyle and appearance, as well as the style and art direction of a video. Most of what is being called "headshots" also include costume as well. You have to concede that the headshot of one video looks substantially different from that of another, aiding in both description and comparison.

Your comment implies that copy-paste is an inappropriate tool, when obviously the nominator used a copy-paste for his nominations. As I said, I checked every image's use and only defended those videos that were being critically discussed as allowed by fair use. --Knulclunk 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I replied on my talk page about all this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personnally I prefer the columns, I think the single list has become too long. Modernist 23:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I only see the single long list, I'll try making the four columns again if you'd like. Please just let me know. Modernist 00:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks great now, Thanks. - Modernist 00:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

i've noted it being based on the Hammon's flag just like you said, i hope it's satisfies u now and that it doesn't breach any wikicommons rule (i did only so other ppl can enjoy it too). thanks for mentioning it to me. Oren neu dag 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit to the article removed quite a bit of content... and I don't think that was your intention, somehow. I undid your last change, please feel free to re-make whatever changes you were making. Thanks! Gscshoyru 01:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry. Thanks for the catch. --Knulclunk 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Knulclunk! I'm sorry, but I reverted your recent edits to Python, Python (disambiguation) and Pythonidae. Python is currently a term used for more things than just the snakes, with a substantial number of links involving computer related subjects (such as the programming language). Also, in the current state it's no longer necessary for the Pythonidae article to carry a disambiguation link. This is the same configuration as for Viper/Viperidae, which has worked perfectly for well over a year now. Also, if you check out Viper, you'll see that even after all this time, the number of snake-related links to it is quite reasonable, so I don't think you need to worry. (PS -- You can answer here as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius 00:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is critical for the Pythonidae article to carry a diambig link. Everyone knows that the computer program, the tank, the car and everything else was named after the snake. What the hell is a Pythonidae? To not be able to get over to the disambig page from the python page is kind of broken.

Actually, that is a corner of WP I never go, but I was surprised there was so little discussion before hand. Do what you think is best. --Knulclunk 01:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The new layout of the python diambig page is very nice now. Good work team! --Knulclunk 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice I didn't use the word "massacre" even once.... Tvoz |talk 05:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

heehee --Knulclunk 10:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adopting that article. It is amazing how an article can grow with just a little push to get it started. BryanJ 16:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually had it on my "to do" list for a while. I logged in last night and saw that the link was longer red! Thanks for getting it started! --Knulclunk 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spore Box Art PC.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Knulclunk,

The major reason I need your help is with the fine intricacies of Wikipedia and not really sure I'm ready to deal with WikiADMIN because of my situation in life so all I can hope is that you will try to help. It's a drag to get these complaints where all I'm trying to do is share photo history with other deadheads and they are what remains of the Grateful Dead! And I before my accident ran an MOCVD Reactor and learned about it from a German Company called Aixtron...etc but essentially was an Semiconductor Engineer so was a capable person and now I'm in a wheelchair and trying to share memories with other deadheads tis all and running into walls, really bites for me 'cause I could really use some positive vibes like those you helped me with copy/paste this:

Own work by Grateful Dead aka Mark Knowles aka rainbow_trout aka Grateful Dead at en.wikipedia. Originally uploaded to en.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Date: Taken 1987-08-11; uploaded 2007-02-24 Author: Grateful Dead aka Mark Knowles aka rainbow_trout aka Grateful Dead at en.wikipedia Permission

	Licensed under the GFDL by the author; Released under the GNU Free Documentation License

Can't thank you enough made me really happy to have someone helping and things rolling and then zap another negative vibe from O

Take care and Peace, Mark Knowles

salmo 04:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grateful_Deadsalmo 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Third party

I just tried to change my Username from Grateful Dead to "Digital deadhead" and I'm not sure I did it correctly. So any help you can provide will be helpful and appreciated! salmo 01:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh golly. I don't know. Sorry! --Knulclunk 01:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007 This box: view • talk • edit

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think Calder does belong there. During the Heyday, he was always discussed along with David Smith. I'd also like to keep the red links because they all were important to AE and hopefully will be filled in with articles. Modernist 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I put Calder back. As far as the others, can they be considered "defining abstract expressionism" if they don't even have an article? Maybe so. But it was also an opportunity to clean out some spam. I figured someone would thoughtfully reload the important ones, if needed. I think I was skimming another article that was real uptight about relinked names, but as you are a major contributor, I'll let you make the call. Thanks for dropping me a line. :)

--Knulclunk 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is very unique. Do you have another example of anything similar? I think it might have been better to discuss your reasoning on the talk page, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. --◀Puck^talk▶ 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that he is a candidate in a current election is reason enough to avoid using it. The seagull picture shows a computer generated photomosaic made from a large database of images. I'm not sure how the Paul advertisement advances upon that.--Knulclunk 02:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Knulclunk,

I finally got around to writing the article on micromollusks. Thanks for your encouragement. Are you gonna go to the Brooklyn event? I may be going. Invertzoo 18:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Great job! Who knew there was a whole world of miniature mollusks? Just need some pictures now! Very nice. Thanks for the great work and for writing. Be sure to it form the mollusk and other articles!

I don't think I'll be attending the Brooklyn event, but I am watching the page and all. Hopefully they'll come back to Manhattan soon!--Knulclunk 01:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Knulclunk I agree-and thanks for the suggestion. -Incantation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incantation (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For your information, I put down a part of the following interview:

• Interviewer: "You are still an Iranian citizen even though you live in France. Was it difficult to get visa to come to the United States?"
• Marjane Satrapi: "Yes I had to stay two month and I have been kept for one and half hour in the airport. Yes it was very difficult. [...] They didn’t even look at my book. All they were interested was my passport, my evil side!" Reference: [6]

In another interview she said: "I am not a Westerner, I am an Iranian, and I'm very proud of being Iranian. [...] I am a free Iranian woman, and proud of being one." Ref: [7]

She grew up in Iran and got educated there, graduating with a master degree in Visual Communication from the School of Fine Arts in Tehran. All her works are also related to Iran. I replaced the categories with a more appropriate one: "Category:French-language writers" (in addition to Category: Iranian-French).

Please see the talk page too.

Best. Mitso Bel 15:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

If you prefer, {{IPAEng}} has the same link as {{pronEng}}, but displays "IPA" rather than "pronounced". Same for {{IPA2}} vs. {{pronunciation}} for foreign words. Feel free to change whatever you want. I'm getting rid of the links to the main IPA article, because many people have complained it's overwhelming, and switching to these simpler keys. I just thought that since a fair number of our readers have no idea what the IPA is, a link displayed as "pronounced" would be more intuitive. kwami 05:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Once I caught onto what you were doing, I think you're right. I'm not a fan of the IPA stuff myself, but your new links seem to get users to where they need to go rapidly, with little fuss. Sorry for jumping on you so quick, thanks for writing back. --Knulclunk 11:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - it does what I do think is needed, but in a less provocative way. Tvoz |talk 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. :)--Knulclunk 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the massacre list: I am concerned about selective gatekeeping, where many items stand with "citation needed" and only a few are removed - Hiroshima and Kent State being the ones I noticed. (What do they have in common, seeing as there is a vast difference in numbers? It's a rhetorical question.) Citations were requested and provided. If you're now saying that even multiple citations for those two don't do it for you, I'm afraid you're making a good argument for dismantling of the list completely, which I don't think was your intent, and is not something I would support either. Meanwhile, since I can't see how housekeeping and adding citations can hurt, I'm putting a little time into it. But I think there is a problem. (And I avoided cites from KS victims or May4 sources, so think the POV accusation is a bit unfair - Kent State has long been called a massacre.) Tvoz |talk 01:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: Pleased to see you also are an inclusionist - the rampant deletion of lists, categories and articles that could be stubbed is a matter of concern to me. Tvoz |talk 01:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

For me, the only citations needed in the Massacre List are dates and numbers. The event doesn't really need to be termed a massacre in the press. The argument that Hiroshima had to be called a massacre seems arbitrary for the reasons I pointed out on the other discussion list; editorials used for sources? C'mon. It would be good if there was more than one source, just to confirm the event happened and to ballpark the numbers - most of these sources can be found at the main article.

I think it is better to define what WP considers a massacre, and include accordingly. I also think that being to strict with the rules in legalistic way serves nobody.

Though I will not defend its inclusion, I won't delete KS from the massacre list again. It just frustrates me when its inclusion is used to justify changing the KS article or picture name, as happened a few months ago. --Knulclunk 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear that about KS on this list. But c'mon - the deal with the picture was the other way around: people (prominently including you, I recall) trying to change it from massacre as it has been for several years to shooting. And you even said then that you thought it appropriate for KS to be included in this massacre list. As for the article, the name has been stable. I'd support the change for the same reason - it's been commonly known as such - but I don't think it is essential, and believe it or not, I don't really want to have a fight over there. There are far more important issues about that article to fight for that I am concerned with. So as long as this term is included as it is in the article, I probably won't lead a fight to change the article name. But as I said, I'd support it. I hope you've decided to give it up on the image too - it really isn't worth the fight, and you will get one. I think leaving sleeping dogs lie is a good policy on the image and the article name. Tvoz |talk 08:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Yes, I still think the image name should be changed, but can let is be as well. Soon soon. --Knulclunk 15:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How come my contributions are aggressive and those current points of views of the article aren't? Also, Im new here, how do you debate in Wikipedia to avoid being kicked out of being annoying? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanicus24 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Persepolis 240.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Knulclunk,

How are you? On November 14th, somebody named Endlessdan has rearranged pictures, changed text and stated on the Fekner page that it does not site resources. Also, this person wrote that he has "invaded the space" a takeoff on the Fekner & Don Leicht painting. I think he has change some other images that Fekner donated to Wiki.

20:08, 14 November 2007 Endlessdan (Talk | contribs) m (16,795 bytes) (Your space has been invaded. General clean up.) (undo)

You have been helpful before and I followed your advice; could you please check into this?. I've been interviewing Fekner for the past year as part of my thesis, and all the information that I've posted has been cited from books, catalogues, newspapers, etc.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Incantation

I took off the no references tag, since you have tons of them. He can tag specific facts, if he has concerns.

If you don't like the new picture layout, you can reorganize the pictures, but you may want to wait a little bit. I only see a few text changes, they seem fine. Reread the article, just to be sure. It dose not seem that the editor did any damage. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, I would only change back things that are wrong or need improvement.

--Knulclunk 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:CaliLewis.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you can probably make a deacent case for that, you would still need to add a Non-free rationale to the image explaining what it adds to that article though. --Sherool (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unconvinced by the fair use rationale. I added more to my objection to hopefully clarify it. I don't think it's a difficult objection to fix, but i do think, as it stands, its a valid one - the image does not have much context in the article, and as such isn't being used to illustrate much. It should be pretty easy to use it to illustrate more, but the article needs a sentence or two about Portacio's work and its style (which really is quite distinctive and an important part of an article on him) to do that. Otherwise, I do think the image is unjustified in the article as it stands. Phil Sandifer 15:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not engage in edit warring; most of the massacres on the list have no citation at all; I did have one.

• Discuss the problems you have on the talk page
• Add citation required and wait for a reasonable period; it is EDIT WARRING to do what you have just done. Please note that 3RR is not an entitlement to 3 reverts nor a licence to join with others trying to evade the rule. I hereby put you on notice that any further reverting of my additions to the article will be treat as a breach of 3RR. Thank you. (Sarah777 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Why are you on my talk page acting like some freaking admin? This inclusion of a battle is ridiculous. Unless you are trying to make a point and have the whole page deleted for idiocy. --Knulclunk (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not either anti-war or left-wing. But I think that removing Fallujah (twice and also twice by a serving US soldier) is wrong considering most of the, for example, Islamist massacres are not referenced at all. Should I delete them all on sight, or wait for the citation requests to be considered? I am not anti-American, or anti-British but anti-double standards on Wiki, which I'd reckon is an important part of WP:NPV. The fact that 90% of contributors to en:Wiki are British or American means that WP:NPVis something that must constantly be asserted by the small minotity who are not. I'm sure that Russian Wiki suffers from the same problem, but I don't read or contribute to Russian Wiki. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

I think then we agree. I support any effort to source events on the list. If an event links into an article, then pull in the article's sources. If an unsourced event does not have an article? I encourage it's deletion! There are other contributers who feel the list is particularly anti-western, so you are not alone in your bias concerns.--Knulclunk (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

hahaha- yeah, well, I try. It beats fighting about it, no? Tvoz |talk 21:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my having created a link to a non-existent page; I was in the process of creating Ash (ballet) and a bunch of other City Ballet stuff when the InterNet connection went down out here in Ohio, where I'm visiting my Mom for Thanksgiving. I have now re-created the article and am about to undo your (justified) undo. I hope you understand that I'm not engaging in an undo war, never have and never will.

Understood. Forge ahead! --Knulclunk (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Recently you contibuted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book. There is now an ongoing discussion stemming from that AfD here if you wish to contribute. [[Guest9999 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Yeah. Maggie confirms it. The only page cite I have to hand is from the Locas collection; 700, bottom right panel.

Jim 18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been a call for deletion of the List of minor characters in the Firefly universe article. Since you've commented on the call to merge all the major characters, I thought you might be interested. Shsilver 15:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that you have reverted good edits without comment or justification and/or under cover of totally misleading comments which do not reflect the edits made. - Sarah777 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits accidentally burned the reference list. I carefully backtracked to your last edit that still had a ref list and reverted to that point. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I burned what? Don't follow. I'll have to look into that. (Sarah777 (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

the colors seem to vary with different metrocards, so I cannot do an exact rendering, and you are free to edit it if you think you can make it better.--Kalphite (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this event more notable than 9/11? The 9/11 article does not list all of its victims anywhere in the article except for listing the names of those victims who were famous for something else other than just being victims of the attacks as well as providing an external link to the list of those confirmed killed. Granted, almost 3,000 people died in 9/11, but wouldn't it then be in poor taste to say that the NATO bombing list is appropriate simply because it is shorter? There is no assertion of notability for any of the NATO bombing victims outside the lone fact that they died in the event and that, in my mind and according to WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, makes the list somewhat innapropriate for a Wikipedia article. Besides, there is an external link that lists those names. SWik78 (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of WP:NOT#MEMORIALis so you don't put up a page for your dad. The manner of the deaths make the deaths notable, in the way that we list all the victims at Kent State Shootings or Candelária massacre. I wouldn't be opposed to the listing of 9|11 victims, in fact I would be surprised that it hasn't been done. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets continue this discussion on the article talk page-->

--Knulclunk (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007 This box: view • talk • edit

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored the image. You'll need to put the image back in the appropriate place on the article and add the rationale.   jj137 (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Knulclunk (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Montana Cans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC) ==

A tag has been placed on Montana Cans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I updated the article about the original Streamline dub.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Color blind racism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The huge amount of fair use images on the article clearly fails WP:NFCC, specifically WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Whether they have fair use rationales or not is irrelevant. A few images may pass the criteria; the Character ones, and others, certainly do not. BKNFCC 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

he is huge here in Milwaukee and frankly that is his significance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceasestreet (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Skydiver (ride) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life | I'm watching you!) 11:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think you mean to tell "ThatWikiGuy" - instead you left a note on my page. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!--Knulclunk (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CM jumanji.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Asenine  12:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Knulclunk. Thank you for your edit to Exodus International. Unfortunately Whistling42 (who was previously 66.30.20.71) changed the article again, which introduced a serious misrepresentation of the sources the article uses, which refer to reparative therapy, not conversion therapy. Please become involved in the discussions about this on the conversion therapy talk page and the WikiProject LGBT studies‎ talk page; this situation is just going to get worse and worse unless a solution is found. Skoojal (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! this is Roy. That was my very first edit on Wikipedia. Did you put up the Don Freeman bio? It looks very good! I hope you don't mind my edits. I was not sure if the "Art Students League" or "Harry Wickey" have Wikipedia entries - and I do not know how to make the links yet. Should I complete the list of book titles? Also, do you want to add the books that Don illustrated but did not write? And one other thing: what about Don's adult books...? Royfreeman (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)royfreeman

I was the guy who requested and uploaded the photo. You can make any edits that you want! Add anything that you feel is encyclopedic. Just be sure not overstep a Neutral Point of View. A list of his books as well as his illustrated work is certainly appropriate. I think you should mention his adult work as well, remember that Wikipedia likes to have published and reliable sources. Obviously any work that Don Freeman had published would qualify. Thanks for you help! --Knulclunk (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An article to which you have contributed, Slashed has been nominated for deletion. you may contribute to this discussion at its Article for deletion page and help improve the article per Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, your right. I'm not sure at all that it is a NOI mosque. It was the opinion of the author, but i'm not sure he is a specialist. Could you obtain the information ? Christophe Cage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.114.181.143 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit : It's a mosque of west african immigrants. see here. Christophe Cage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.114.181.143 (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true! Ref was at the end of the para, which got split into two paras.[8] Ty 17:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks for the ref --Knulclunk (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27 This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cloverfeildcloseup.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What WP policy breach are you referring to here? There is no harm in re-listing a FUR discussion, FYI. You may want to refactor your comment there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also note that as an editor that commented there, it is not for you to close the FUR. Please undo, or relist in a new section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't close it, it was closed by by Cirt. --Knulclunk (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

... You are not responding to my questions. Again:

1. What WP policy breach you are referring to?
2. Is there anything wrong in re-listing a request for review?

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Norma Kamali requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Knulclunk/Norma Kamali. This was not a notability issue, but the article was promotional needing rewrite. Ty 14:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping the old one into my sandbox. I'll work on it over the next few days.--Knulclunk (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Elle williams 360.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

You undid my update to the Watership Down article where I had put in a link to Aldo Galli thinking it may be spam. I can assure you that it is not. Please follow the references and you will see both the artist and Richard Adams together at the exhibit. A full review is now online at the Whitchurch Arts website

Perhaps it was my mistake to put Aldo Galli in square brackets.

How can the article be put back together again?

Thanks,

AndrewRH (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The nomination had been listed for more than 5 days, giving everyone plenty of time for discussion per the IFD process. Use of the image fails WP:NFCC#8 and was deleted as no argument given convinced me otherwise. If you believe the deletion was improper, the process is to post a deletion review request. -Regards Nv8200p talk 15:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall. I think the rationale is great. --Knulclunk (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Knulclunk. I want to know what do you think about my solution on OKBot. I guess it will solve the problem of 'non-free items are just parts of the image'.--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 09:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks on my edits here. Will try to do some more.--Parkwells (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Knulclunk, I am the mediator in this case and would to know what you want from the case and what you hope to see done about it. I am currently reading over the case notes at the moment and would appreciate some input from you. Corruptcopper (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that introducing the term Generation Jones in the lead paragraph of the Baby Boomer article mis-represents the usage of the term. While the Baby Boomer concept has been well established for some time (40+ years), Generation Jones has only recently (c.2000) been coined by speaker Johnathan Pontell[[9], to identify a cohort of people "between the Boomers and the Generation Xers". The term has been used a lot recently with the U.S presidential election of Obama, almost always attached to Pontell's name, who is also a FOX contributor.

Obviously the concept exists and has followers, but there is no WP:RS to indicate that the understood definition of Baby Boomer has been replaced or changed. Editor User:TreadingWater has added Generation Jones to a host of articles, including Baby Boomer, baby boom, Post-World War II baby boom, List of generations and Generation X. Any attempt to modify the language from from "now usually called" or "many experts believe" is met with accusations of agenda pushing and immediate reverting by User:TreadingWater or User:Wendy 2012. Mainspace reverts are made prior to talk page discussion and discussion revolves around hostility and protectionism.

To quote a reply from a recent talk page: "usage has evolved to include Generation Jones, and who are frustrated at your constant attempts to deny that changed reality on the pages of Wikipedia. You have old school views about these generations that seem to fit your agenda, and you misleadingly play down the reality of GenJones' emergence" Not too rude, but it is in response to multiple editors trying to solve this problem over a period of time. What has not been given is any independent source that matches his claim of changed reality. Personally, I think the term is a trendy neoglism, but will be satisfied with being removed for the lead paragraph and language that does not overstate the terms usage. Qualified by "also called" "some call" will suffice.

Thanks for your help--Knulclunk (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there just an update on the case I have received a few emails and hopefully this case is sorted out now. Corruptcopper (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)