User talk:Knucmo2/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello knucmo, you lazy git, get on with the Project!!!! --Nilrem 15:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. This is my first attempt at talk. I hope I'm doing it right. You apparently are the source for this quote on the Samuel Reshevsky page: "My style is somewhere between that of Tal and Petrosian" -- are you sure it is genuine? I know it's all over the internet, but I think it originated from me half-quoting it from memory in 1996. Do you have a book source or just the internet? Rocksong 06:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC) It's OK. I found another source and corrected the quote. Rocksong 05:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the tip! 12.201.64.79 18:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help on Wikipedia. Werdan548 15:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

Thanks for cleaning out the album descriptions. It looks much better now. Seriously. -- Dave C. 00:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem, I am a fan, that's all. --Knucmo2 18:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Curious about your recent edit to the discography. Perhaps this needs to be rolled off into another article? I'd hate to lose the wiki-links to the removed albums. For some, the FZ article was the only link. Thoughts? -- Dave C. 16:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps so. The reason I did it was because the article is approaching an unacceptable size.--Knucmo2 20:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Chauntea

Since you "conceded" Chauntea on FAC, I thought it would be best to move it off of that page and on to Peer Review. Hopefully some people will give you good advice there. I'm knowledgeable about some areas of DnD, but obscure gods isn't one of them, so there's not much I can do to help write the article. Still, if there's anything else I can do, let me know and I'll be glad to help out. Good luck! Dave (talk) 19:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I can state, that you thought right! I completely bypassed that stage in the creation of a featured article, utterly. I thank'ee. --Knucmo2 20:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Chaunteasymbol.jpg

Image deletion warning The image Image:Chaunteasymbol.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.

I know you added an IFD tag to this image at one point, but it's used in an article. What's the copyright status of this image? Is this fan-drawn, or drawn by the creator/an employee of the Forgotten Realms stuff? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure to be honest. --Knucmo2 11:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Debate over Wikipedia's usefulness

There is a small debate raging over Wikipedia's credibility on a group in USENET, read it here, and take part in the discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/54eeed3cbebedb45/1d369b30191f07cc?q=wikipedia+has+no+credibility&rnum=1#1d369b30191f07cc.

Proposal for Possible jazz project

The standard of a lot of jazz articles on Wikipedia is shoddy. There are certain musicians (such as Lucky Thompson) who have next-to-nothing wrote about them. However, I have been impressed by the standard of certain articles, which convinces me that there are others besides myself working hard to improve the information we have on this vital art form. Thus, I propose a wikiproject for jazz, with 10 active people at the minimum required. Since other genres such as classical have a project page for co-ordinating efforts, I think jazz could do with one, due the large amount of work to be done. Respond either here or on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music page. (This includes all forms of jazz, dixieland, swing, fusion, bop etc.)--Knucmo2 19:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Fernando Rizo's RfA

Thanks for the kind support of my RfA, Knucmo2. I hope that I can continue to earn your confidence as an administrator. See you around the Wiki. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all amigo, perhaps we have too many admins, but you were certainly a worthy candidate.--Knucmo2 16:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: AFD

I apologize if you find my tone patronizing. What Soltak said was correct; I merely found your AfD pointless. Andre (talk) 23:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Say no more about it then.--Knucmo2 23:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your work, but I wanted to say that in general, I think redirects from minor spelling errors are desirable, unless they collide with something else useful in the namespace, since they help people find things, especially stubby-fingered typists like me. Cheers, MCB 01:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, I guess Homer Simpson would disagree with me too!--Knucmo2 10:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Feedback

Hey, do you know where I can request feedback on one of my articles, and ask people to contribute? I don't want to advertise my articles on people's Discussion Pages; I also don't want to submit my article for being a Featured Article; so what do I do?

Is there such a place? The only place I know of is the section where you ask for feedback to see if the article lives up to the standard of being a featured article. --Anittas 19:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Glad you asked, if it's a reasonable article submit it to Wikipedia:Peer review, go through the instructions for submission (they're easy to read through), and from there you'll get constructive feedback about the article (be patient however). If you have any other queries, leave them on this talk page.--Knucmo2 23:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but that's the page where it says that "this page is for nearly Featured-standard articles that need the final checking by peers before being nominated as Featured articles". It seems that that's the only resource for getting feedback and I just wanted to make sure there's no other way of getting feedback. Thanks! --Anittas 00:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team

When you have time, can you please review West Indian cricket team. We are trying to get it up to FA standard. Tintin 06:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing --Knucmo2 21:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Saw your comment in the talk page of the article. Please do improve it in any way you can. Tintin 00:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Kammerlader

Hi. I applogies for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but some time ago you was helpfull with comments on one of 'my' other articles on old Norwegian rifles and I wondered if you might be interested in helping out peer reviewing the article on the Kammerlader. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 11:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it's hardly spam.--Knucmo2 21:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandal alert

I noted that you issued a final warning to 169.150.128.50. The Bob Dylan page was vandalized at 21:19 Lion King 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

An admin shall be notified--Knucmo2 15:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Aetherometry

I note your vote on my RFA. As far as I recall, the Correas didn't directly edit aetherometry. Which of the edits do you think came from them? But if they had, it would have been rather inappropriate, since this is very much their own work, and very much disputed. William M. Connolley 12:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

I meant Askanas, my mistake. I've made the change on your nomination page.--Knucmo2 12:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... OK. Just for curiosity (I'm no seeking to change your vote), who is Askanas, and did you expect me to know that Askanas was User:Helicoid, and if so, how? William M. Connolley 13:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
AFAIK Helicoid is Malgosia Askanas, a friend of the Correas. I've read their polemic against Wikipedia which is how I found out actually who Helicoid was, though it has to be said their account of is biased and rhetorical at points. I'm not sure their account of the controversy is entirely accurate, but I surveyed the debate for myself independent of and previous to reading of Correa's publications. I made the presumption that you might have known who Helicoid really was, though I don't know why. I hope this clears things up.--Knucmo2 14:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know that. I couldn't find Helicoids identity in the polemic either, though perhaps I didn't search hard enough. I suspect that most other eath editors don't know, and I think it makes Helicoids fervent support there against wiki policy. I've added a note at t:ae [1]. William M. Connolley 14:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

J. McLean/Political compass

Hi, Knucmo2,

I saw your edit of Jackie McLean. I share your misgivings about that list, although I created it. Originally it was just an aid to help me create further articles. I left it in because I couldn't think of a really good reason to remove it, but realize others may think differently.

Anyway, I see two options for the list if it is indeed too long. One is to prune it more, the problem being getting agreement about which musicians to prune (for example, I think Galeta has played an important enough role in McLean's career to merit inclusion). Would you be interested in doing any further co-operative pruning? If you don't have time for that, I would appreciate your opinion about what criteria to apply for including people in the list.

Another option is just to omit the list and maybe add a paragraph about the range of people he recorded with. Something needs to be done about it, I think.

I also noticed your political compass score on your user page, so I went and found out what mine was. It's highly similar: 0.38 economic left/right and -4.46 social libertarian/authoritarian. However, I consider myself a socialist, which I found amusing. I guess the reason is that my version of socialism emphasizes a mixed economy, which means I don't demonize capitalism. And perhaps the fact that I end up on the right tells us something about the contemporary debasement of socialism. We oppose the same things, anyway.

I wonder if political compass score predicts liking for Jackie McLean. John FitzGerald 16:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I know a Communist who is heavily into Cannonball and Jackie! There's nothing I like better than hearing McLean really tear into a track - particularly "Bluesnik". As a guitar player it makes it difficult transcribing his solos from an alto sax (similar problems arise with another favourite of mine - Eric Dolphy). I used to be sympathetic to socialism (and even communism) until I read certain books by Van Mises and Hayek - earth-shattering books they be. The list I think should actually be abolished - we don't see the same on John Coltrane's page or Miles Davis' yet they're good articles in their own right. Given the amount of sessions McLean recorded the list could reach unmanageable proportions. Incidentally, I consider myself a classical libertarian, if that means much to you. --Knucmo2 00:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well. I suppose politics doesn't predict musical taste, after all. But does your friend like Dr. Jackle? That is my favourite album of the ones I've heard (a pretty large number, but I doubt that I've heard half of his recorded oeuvre). Anyway Dr. Jackle is intense. Reminds me of the 60s (it was recorded in 1966) when everyone was trying to play as hard and as inventively as they could. This may interest you. Let me know what you think if you get a chance to look at it.

Yes, classical libertarianism does mean something to me. I remain a socialist because there are clearly goods (that is, public goods) which cannot effectively be traded in private markets (like electricity from large grids) and because an effective private market cannot be established for some private goods (health care, for example, although the current health care system I put up with in Ontario is scarcely an advertisement for public management). I also believe firmly in individual rights, an idea which is under attack everywhere these days but which is supposedly a foundation of socialism, although from the way many professional socialists act these days you have to wonder.

As for the list, I think I'll take it out and copy it into one of my peronal pages. I'll add sommething about the range of people he has played with. Eventually, that is. Have to go force myself to work at the moment, but I should be able to get back to it today. John FitzGerald 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternate history

You are using the verb form of the word, whereas in this article, "alternate" is being used as an adjective. Please see this link for definition used here (under adjective entry). "Alternate" is correct, and the term used by most authors in the genre. --日本穣 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the OED that usage of alternate as an adjectival phrase is Chiefly US and not used anywhere else: B. n. [the adj. used absol.]
   1. That which alternates with anything else; a vicissitude, an alternative. Now chiefly U.S.

And I suppose most Americans are in the alternative history genre, which would explain a lot (Dick, Heinlein etc.) The two terms whether used as an adjective or not should not be confused, otherwise, why just not ditch one of the words? Exactly. Also I believe the OED is a better, more reliable source than you quote from. Thus my edits were not "incorrect" as you deem them in the edit summary. --Knucmo2 10:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To quote from my discussion page entry on this subject: Alternate History is the term commonly used by the people who actually use it. Google search for alternate-history-novel gives 14,800 hits. alternative-history-novel gives only 889 hits. The former is used 1564% more often than the latter. (To clarify: using the exclusivity method of google searching, as of today, alternate-history-novel -alternative gives 17,700 hits, and alternative-history-novel -alternate gives 961 hits.) Clearly the latter is not the accepted term. Even within wikipedia alternate history is used more often in things like category names: see category:alternate history characters, category:alternate history films, category:alternate history games, category:alternate history novels, category:alternate history writers etc. etc. Most of the articles linking to alternative history actually say "alternate history"in the text; "alternative" is only in the link. When such a discrepancy exists between common usage and what you believe the correct usage should be, it is likely that your analysis of the terminology used is at fault rather than the common usage being incorrect. But whatever the reasoning behind what the correct term is, it is not Wikipedia's job to change overwhelming common usage; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). (Also note that this does not affect the usage of alternative history to refer to writing about history from an alternative point of view; see alternative history.) pfahlstrom 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Very well, I'll accept that. But this just testifies to the illiteracy of so many people these days. Pointing to common usage is to commit the fallacy of confusing widespread acceptance with justification. It is unlikely I am incorrect at all because common usage says otherwise. The people who write alternative history do so probably because they are aware of what alternative means, that is, of two things that may be chosen, not of two things that go back and forth as a piston might in an engine (hence alternator) --Knucmo2 19:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You might want to take a gander at the ideas expressed in the prescription and description article to see that there are scholarly types on both sides of this argument. Descriptivism does not equal illiteracy. But personally responding to the what I perceive as the sentiment of your response, I am not of the opinion that acceptance = justification, but grammar is not a moral issue; God speaks to each nation in their own tongue, even if other people think it's vulgar. pfahlstrom 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The page you point me to is linguistic, which I am not interested in, and it is not relevant to the issue. Regional differences do not justify violations of a standard English rule, and that is, assigning arbitary uses to words (Will Ferrell satirized George Bush by referring to "strategery" to ridicule his illiteracy, whereas a descripitivist isn't interested in that, he's interested in what the person means by its usage, a prescriptivist would look at if it conformed to regional dialect) which will not do on an encyclopedia that should be wrote in grammatical, logical, standard English. In addition, it's not a moral issue, it's a logical one. Just because x amount of people accept a belief that does not justify its truthhood. You pointed to the greater case of people accepting the illiterate descriptive form of the genre, which, is good enough for Wikipedia according to the Naming conventions rule you cited, but that does not make it so. It is still a fallacy of the appeal to belief. I think God would address a nation at least in a literate manner too, otherwise that would undermine the moral respect that a lot of people seem to have for him, since if a perfect divine being cannot speak with eloquence, what hope would his followers have. Jesus was at least literate when he gave his Sermon on the Mount. Anywho, case closed for now, you can continue to alternate (or alternative!) as you please. --Knucmo2 00:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You say "an encyclopedia that should be wrote in grammatical, logical, standard English." "Standard English" is defined by descriptive linguists as "the English spoken by the majority." Since this term is used by the vast majority in its field, it is standard. If you think it is ungrammatical and illogical, a descriptive linguist would suggest you must not understand the underlying grammaticality and logicalness of the usage; I would suggest that people who do use "alternate" in this manner see a connotative contrast with "alternative" and do not see any possible confusion with the other "alternate Thursdays" usage of the word. Also, in your own argument, the OED's entry in that statement implies, with "Now chiefly US," that it was formerly accepted usage in the UK but fell out of favor, which indicates that at one time people there found it logical and grammatical enough to use; how many of the OED citations for that usage are from older published UK sources? Clearly at some point in the past someone decided that it was bad grammar, but grammarians also used to say that "alternative" could be used only if there were no more than two choices because of the term's Latin roots, and thankfully people are free to ignore that rule nowadays. But anyway, as you agree the common usage argument is good enough for Wikipedia, then the argument is indeed over. ^_^ 68.65.72.235 05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not care for what descriptivists have to say as I iterated before as it is a matter of irrelevance - you beg the question by supposing that the descriptivists description is indeed the correct description of what Standard English is. I do not wish to study words and take them apart, I only insist upon a decent standard of grammar and spelling. I define Standard English as a general term for a "form of written and spoken English that is considered the model for educated people" (Wikipedia). You can argue against it all you like, but it will be irrelevant to my criticism. I understand why "alternate" is used in the way it is, so I do not fall prey to the descriptivist's charge that I "don't understand", but that is not to say I believe that it is the correct way of expressing oneself. Another modish thing at the minute is to apply the noun critique improperly as a verb. I understand why that might be, and what it is that such a person means to say, but that does not stop me from correcting him, or pulling him up on his grammar, irrespective of my linguistic position. To insist on the example you quote is somewhat humdrum these days as you say. Again, common usage does not indicate grammatical truth. --Knucmo2 09:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Knucmo2. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well-founded phenomenon

Why in this edit did you change correct English (and Wikipedia MoS) punctuation to incorrect? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. My browser rendered it in foreign code that made it appear like gobbledygook. Now I've got my other browser opens it appears correctly. --Knucmo2 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cliché Correction

In case you are interested, the correct expression is "one fell swoop." This describes a fierce, destructive downward sweep of a blade. This relates to the edit summary for your comment in the talk page for Spinoza's Ethics.Lestrade 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Lol! Thanks - Perhaps I was subconsciously reacting against the cliche by misspelling it!!

Wikipedia:Introduction

I was wondering about this edit you made to the introduction page. Barring the removal of the template and edit-text stuff, users are free to make nonsense edits there, as it is a partial sandbox. So basically anything that isn't profanity or not allowed can stay. _-M o P-_ 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I realised my mistake instantly, I don't think the revert has had a deleterious effect though nor was the material worth unreverting. --Knucmo2 18:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Nah, its no problem, just that some users get the impression that they did something wrong and are scared away. But you're a good vandal-whacker, so don't stop! :P _-M o P-_ 18:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Aye, you're right. Thanks for the kind words. --Knucmo2 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Knucmo2, 209.6.16.56 (talk • contribs) is already blocked for 24 hours, so there is no need to report him/her again. Thanks, Kilo-Lima|(talk) 19:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism

Regarding vandalism on Red Lobster, I was not trying to vandalise, I was trying to fix it... excuse me for Being Bold 68.175.27.35 21:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, it looks like a vandal edit to me. Feel free to go on, and be bold. --Knucmo2 21:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the user who was comprehensively failing to edit from 131.111.121.28 earlier -- what was happening (and it was driving me utterly up the wall, vandalism really just winds me up!) was that the browsers I was using (the first two edits Safari, the last Firefox in a vain hope it would actually work) were resetting connection whenever I submitted an edit - net result, page truncation, which looks exactly like vandalism.

I posted something to that effect via Lynx on User_talk:131.111.121.28 as soon as I worked out what was going on.

My apologies if this has contributed to your angry Wikimood; it's certainly not helped mine any. :-( I'm editing this from a different computer now, and it appears to actually be working; I'll save up any edits from that computer until I'm at home in the future. 131.111.41.167 16:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the Wikimood thing is a bit of a joke. I've read your comments on the talk page about your browser messing up, and its good that you sorted it out before you were blocked for a day. Glad you've sorted it out, and take it easy. --Knucmo2 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears I do have an account here, I remember (I only ever make very small copy edits - the page I've contributed to is probably Teenage Fanclub, and even that was only sorting out some of Bandwagonesque's critical press), so I've logged in now I know this computer's working :) Seriously, I was pulling my bloody hair out - all I was trying to do was make a really tiny copy edit to the page about this here university.

Sodding networks. Andrew Walkingshaw 16:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Communism Page

Sorry, it wasn't my intent to remove anything. I thought I had spotted a sentence being repeated twice, and after I realised it was on purpose I was trying to figure out how to revert it when you posted to me - I'm still a newbie at this stuff :)

Well, consider yourself advanced enough to be humble enough to apologise and accept you made a mistake! I'd recommend reading How to edit a page if you're unsure. --Knucmo2 23:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jazz-L

Thanks for your message, and for joining in the little project. I've expanded some of the details (mainly track listings). I don't have Eastern Sounds, so can't check, but it's odd that AMG don't give the producer and other technical personnel. They're usually very thorough with that kind of thing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

141.150.69.8

Actually it's a shared IP, so the user blocked wasn't him. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Helo

Tung!

Nice to meet you in Wikipedia. But if you dont know wat the poit it is, pleace be neutral ang go away.--172.180.139.53 12:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


This is a part of edit war. He is thingin that, he can make wat he want in English Wikipedia, only beacose he have so many user account. Pleace if you dont know that go a way--172.178.126.153 12:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A threat

I'll do what the fuck I like Thanks to the magic of isps in several different countries, I can do what I like for hours, and by the end you're going to have to have banned half the internet. You piece of fucking shit. And none of this would have happened if you hadn't deleted my ogg file. Judge Jeff Gustafson 22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. --Knucmo2 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help in fighting vandalism. Much appreciated! RexNL 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And the same to you. I've been watching you on Vandal fighter. How many gallons of coffee have you drunk today!!!!! --Knucmo2 22:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche

Thank you for your message. As far as I am concerned, it was not necessary. — goethean ॐ 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you muchly…

… for your reversion of vandalism on my user page. æle ✆ 2006-04-23t21:52z

Any time. --Knucmo2 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the sophia support. I didn't know you were part of Wikiphilosophy! :) -- infinity0 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome notes

You should definately revise your message to supposed "new editors". I made a correction in Wikipedia and you say you reversed it, assuming (incorrectly) that it was some sort of "test". The message was extremely condescending.

Actually, I corrected an article link that you claim to have reversed eventhough you merely changed the link to include all the words in the list. You actually expanded upon a correction of mine.

Please do not inform me to head to the sandbox again. That is insulting. {unsigned|12.201.64.79}}

I reverted it because the correct format would have been to put the target of the link in piped text (commodus|blah blah blah Commodus) for example so your correction was only partial. Do not take any reversion of any kind personally, it was not labelled vandalism, and calm your tone please. --Knucmo2 22:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Knucmo2! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Fetofs Hello! 23:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the authorization. --Knucmo2 10:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Hey man...

I don't think you should be telling people to calm their tone when you can't hear their voice. Remember, you were the one that edited my correction and sent me a notice. Therefore my "tone" is inconsequential; I'm not the one sending out these messages when someone makes a mistake.

Had my tone sounded the way you seem to think it would have sounded the sentences would have ended in exclamation marks. Your comment became condescending when you assumed that I was merely fooling around with an article. My comment, however, was completely neutral in tone, and, had it been possible to hear it, would have sounded very much like an airport announcer: calm, reserved, with steady pace, somewhat monotone but mostly just emotionless - purely informational.

You seem to ride along on the idea that you are "contributing" when, in actuality, you really appear rather controlling and arbitrary. You act just like one of those people that is telling everyone to sit down all the time.

It would be better if you started giving out tips by hand as opposed to sending out automated responses that seem very much like a "Dear John" letter: "Thank you for your interest Wikipedia," it could have said.

(While I stand by the root purpose of this, much of the above was written in mild jest in hopes that I may diffuse any hostilities while still giving myself to get another word in.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.201.64.79 (talk • contribs).

Thanks!

Thanks for the complement! As Kierkegaard says in The Point of View of my Work as an Author, I think he deserves his poet :) Poor Yorick 10:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page :) -- infinity0 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And uh, can I ask a favour, that you watch my user page? It's been vandalised a lot recently, and I'm not going to be as active. -- infinity0 18:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep it on my watchpage, sure. --Knucmo2 19:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa thanks

This is a personalized (non AWB thanks) thank you for your RFA vote and comments on my talk page. I appreciate your support, and your kind words on my talk page. This RFA went far better than I expected it to, and I'm sure that it will be even better in a couple of months when I try again. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa

Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13/Userbox_Gallery_Poll

It isn't ready yet, so please do not vote until it is ready. ILovEPlankton 02:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Я не буду американцом.

It means: "I won't be American." "I am not American" should be translated as "Я не американцом." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vít Zvánovec (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the correction. --Knucmo2 14:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Indulge. :)
Enlarge
Indulge. :)

Dear Knucmo2/Archive 1,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Check this out: http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/15a4ad90. When adminship comes up next time and you've done such tasks I'll be more than content to support. --Knucmo2 23:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/n/u/User_talk%7EKnucmo2_Archive_1_622f.html"