Open main menu

Anime BostonEdit

Hi Knowledgekid87,

Regarding the Anime Boston event history table, how does WP:MOSDATES make the location column non-redundant? Or were you just trying to revert the changes to the date column?

Thank you, ―MJBurrage(TC) 01:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

There are two different locations, and the article seems to follow MDY format. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about the dates, they were not my main focus and I'm fine with leaving them MDY.
Regarding the Location, which in this case is highly repetitive, what's wrong with the sentence I added "Since 2005, Anime Boston has been held at the Hynes Convention Center. The 2003 and 2004 events were held at the Boston Park Plaza." Which covers the same information, and allows the Location column to be removed (making more space for the detailed guests column). ―MJBurrage(TC) 02:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Black Clover (season 1)#Possible FL push?Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Black Clover (season 1)#Possible FL push?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you did upload that fileEdit

But maybe I'm losing my mind and "00:39, 26 March 2014 Knowledgekid87 uploaded File:Millenium Tower artist drawing Boston.jpg" means something else who knows. Odd bit of revisionism that is, but logs are never deleted EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: My memory must have slipped me then, I am fine with its deletion as we now have alternatives. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

May 2019Edit

You may be interested in this discussion [1] --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 10:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Eng.M.Bandara: Thank you for the notice, I think I am just going to let this debate go though. Its clear that some on Wikipedia are thinking through their hearts (which isn't a bad thing) rather than through policy and guidelines regarding inclusion criteria on some of these articles. I mean if I saw breaking news on a dramatic event like I have done in the past I would want to make the article as soon as possible. It pays to wait though as we aren't a news source but an encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate message to talk page.Edit

1. If you haven't already you might want to think before leaving passive-aggressive comments on people's talk pages. I've been an editor here since 2005.

2. If you haven't already you might want to delete the dozens of unsourced items already on that episode list, as well as the commonplace and similar sections on hundreds of other episode lists on Wikipedia, instead of singling out my edits. - R9tgokunks 02:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: Please calm down, this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I simply asked you to source your content is all, you don't need to jump on WP:POINT just because someone mentioned something to you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Casagrande family-relatedEdit

Hi. I heard that you established a page for the Casagrande family that first appeared in The Loud House and will have their spin-off where it's page hasn't been established yet. To make the page noteworthy on Wikipedia, you might want to make the page similar to how somebody established the pages for Howard and Harold McBride. I'm just letting you know that. In the meantime, I suggest keeping the brief information on the family members on the page for The Loud House even if it's gets a character page. I'm just making a suggestion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It will be fine, character pages are made frequently on Wikipedia in order to clear up clutter on the main page. The page needs secondary sources which can be added over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of The Casagrandes (characters) for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Casagrandes (characters) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Casagrandes (characters) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

List of clipper ships editsEdit

I believe your recent project to convert List of clipper ships to a table is ill-considered. Doing so has deleted much informative and factual text from the entries. In addition, splitting them between "extreme clippers" and others is somewhat artificial, as the "extreme" designation is ill-defined. Please consider reverting the tabulation to the original list format. Disclosure: I wrote the Bald Eagle (clipper) article and its entry in the list, which is one of the many entries adversely affected by the tabulation. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Craigthebirder: Can you tell me how the entry is "adversely affected"? The list article is a large block of unreadable prose, and the removal of intricate detail encourages the reader to click on an article to read about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I want to point out WP:WHENTABLE, prose works great for articles and not so much for lists that have dozens of entries. If you want to help then the list could really use a lead section, which can be in prose to summarize build locations and such. The tables are also sortable so that informative info can be sorted, and rows can always be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The Bald Eagle list entry was not a large block of unreadable prose, it was a single sentence. Many of the other entries now tabulated also lost only a couple of sentences, not large blocks. I believe that those sentences act as teasers which might prompt someone reading this list to then read the ship's full article, while the bare bones table misses that opportunity. Entries with larger blocks of prose, like that of Sir Lancelot, would be better served by judicious editing of the entry. WP:WHENTABLE says "If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice." I maintain that not only is there no obvious benefit to the table, but actual detriment.
Perhaps this discussion should be carried forward at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships? Craigthebirder (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, this is a list and not an article. We already have an article on Clippers that sums up the role of these ships. Looking at the talk-page I noticed that the idea of placing the entries in a table goes back to 2011. Can you point out a list that is rated "FL" that presents the information in the style that you want to keep? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a table was proposed in 2011, but not acted on until now. I don't know what an "FA" rating is, so I can't look for a list with it. Again, I suggest that this discussion include additional interested parties since the format conversion is such a significant change. Do you want to open it as a new topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships or shall I? Craigthebirder (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I opened up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#List of clipper ships. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

List of The Loud House characters-relatedEdit

Hi. Yesterday, I was attempting to add more facts to the pets on the List of The Loud House characters page. If you want to maintain the prose, I am suggesting that the type of dog and cat that Charles and Cliff are be maintained so that the people would know what type they are. I'm just letting you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: Are there any reliable sources saying what type of pets they are? This can easily be disputed by editors insisting that x is a particular breed of y and amounts to WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
So far, those who have contributed to The Loud House Wiki were able to figure their type out even if they compared their bodily descriptions to their animated forms and their real-life counterparts. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It still amounts to WP:OR though as fans are guessing what type of pets they are. Believe me I have seen this before, it does not end well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Cromdale (clipper)Edit

Hi - I haven't played around with the ship infobox before, but you might want to take a look here, there are quite a few images that would illustrate that article nicely. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks! Yeah I don't have the time to work on the article right now, but will expand and improve things later. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
OK - I had a bit of a play with it (couldn't help myself, those images were so interesting), I've inserted a couple into the article. By all means move them around, change them to whichever ones you think best etc. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

List of ocean linersEdit

Greetings, thanks for "tidying up" the info. Some of it was actually only temporary info I ran across as I was creating links for the future article SS Panama. Removing the extra still retained it in the history. Otr500 (talk)

Why delete images at List of clipper shipsEdit

What is your rationale for removing my images from list of clippers? Images that give a lot of information of these ships. Where is the policy? Broichmore (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Broichmore: The MOS is MOS:PERTINENCE, namely "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic". In this case the article is talking about clippers, not posters talking about them. Some of them I retained as they at least show the ship the list line is talking about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to fall out over this, while I agree with what your saying on the face of it... But... Clipper cards are extremely high quality, pertinent images. John Gilpin for example has on it the the very flag of the shipping company, captain named, details of voyage etc. The cards are so intimate to the history of the ship, they are pretty much unique in that way. Also they are provably authentic in a way some ship images are not... You can only get closer to a ship by standing on the deck. I have to say that the effort to obtain these cards can be considerable, and we should use them especially when the ship is not notable enough for a article or there is no ship image anywhere available to us... Broichmore (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Broichmore: Okay I will relent, images of the actual ship though should take preference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I now, agree totally with you. I saw you have a discussion going on at the moment on tabulating the article. Mention has been made of the lack of referencing! Of course, clipper cards are references in themselves. Should this conversation be copied on the talk page there? Regards. Broichmore (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
You can copy this discussion to the talk page if you want, I just feel that we should use the best images we can for the ships. For example, a black and white photograph is going to be better than a "clipper card". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Obviously. What I meant was, where there is no referencing and or ship image, then cards would do... Broichmore (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah sure, sorry it is in the middle of the week and the morning here... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A suggestionEdit

Please add your signature to the headers of content you hatted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia. It is important for users to be aware of who actually hatted the content; otherwise, people would have to go through the page's revision history to figure out who performed it. Transparency is important. Cheers, North America1000 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you startedEdit

Thanks for creating List of Japanese coinage patterns.

User:Onel5969 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Very nice list article. Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 TT me 23:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors article is inaccurate, biased, and does not meet Wikipedia standards.Edit

Earlier today you reverted my changes to the Wikipedia page on the legal status of pornography depicting minors and tagged it for "vandalism". Nothing was vandalized. The changes that were made were to correct both factually incorrect statements and article bias. As it currently stands after my changes were reverted, the article does not give an accurate view of US law in this topic. It is also littered with bias and incomplete information that does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality standards.

The article opens with a biased and unnecessary paragraph that should, if anything, be in a separate "Opinions" section; "Some analysts have argued whether cartoon pornography that depicts minors is a victimless crime.[1][2] Laws have been enacted to criminalize "obscene images of children, no matter how they are made", for inciting abuse. An argument is the claim that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the fact that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a non-criminal outlet for desires that could motivate crime.[3][4]" This paragraph not only presents two pro-pornography arguments, it provides **four** pro-pornography sources and zero to the contrary. This is not even an attempt at a balanced framing of the issue.

The next major problem is in the United States section; Despite US obscenity law being critical to this issue, particularly 18 U.S.C. § 1466A which reads; " Section 1466A of Title 18, United State Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene." Nowhere in the article is this line stated. The statute itself is only mentioned in passing in relation to Dwight Whorely's conviction later in the article. The fact that this very important statute is effectively left out of the article is unacceptable.

Next, the line: "In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was facially invalid in prohibiting virtual or cartoon child pornography." Nowhere in the Ashcroft case does the word "cartoon" ever appear, this was an invention by the Wikipedia editor.

The next line of the article that's factually inaccurate is one of the worst of all; it reads "Response to "18 U.S.C. § 1466A" has been met with legal challenges on a number of fronts. On May 19, 2008, the SCOTUS again applied the holding of Ashcroft, supra, to virtual child pornography via United States v. Williams (2008). It was ruled that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed...Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever." Except 18 U.S.C. § 1466A had absolutely nothing to do with United States v. Williams. To state that US v. Williams was a "legal challenge" to 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is completely inaccurate, as the statute it challenged was not only completely different but even upheld. The case ultimately had absolutely no effect on US obscenity law, and the way this entire paragraph is worded is both misleading and intended to give the view that 18 U.S.C. § 1466A was "overturned", though that is completely inaccurate.

Finally, the article closes by listing "thought crime" and "victimless crime" in the See Also section. This is utterly biased. Many would argue that this issue is neither a victimless crime (the UN has stated it's used in child grooming, for example) nor a thought crime. Neither of these two things should be listed as they present a starkly pro-pornography bias.

So why not find sources that are anti-pornography arguments? Don't delete sources just because you disagree with them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Atrato launch dateEdit

The Illustrated London News was published on a Saturday and refers to the Atrato being launched Tuesday week ie the Tuesday of the previous week. I have provided 2RS which confirms the correct date. Keep up the good work Lyndaship (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Knowledgekid87".