User talk:Knucmo2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Knucmo2/Archive 1

Contents 1 Thanks for the support on my RfA! 2 Off-wiki personal attacks poll 3 My RFA 4 Thank you! 5 Confusion? 6 Karl Marx 7 Pac-Man 8 Thanks for voting in my RfA! 9 Your vote on my RFA 10 Roger Hedgecock 11 My RFA 12 What kind of cleanup? 13 Rmrfstar's RfA 14 You're claim that I commited vandalism is pure non-sense 15 Descartes Problematic Idealist 16 Image Tagging for Image:Chaunteathumb.jpg 17 RfA thanks 18 Sukh's RFA - Thanks! 19 My RFA 20 VandalProof 1.2 Now Available 21 Vandal 199.246.2.11 22 About Petrejo 23 hello Knucmo2 sorry if your busy is theBlackbay here :)

[edit] Thanks for the support on my RfA!

A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! It passed 54/2/3, much better than I expected! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off-wiki personal attacks poll

Since you have previously participated in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy, I wanted to let you know about a quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated!

• Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks

Strom 21:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hello Knucmo2, and thanks for supporting me on my recent request for adminship! It has succeeded with an unanimous support of 67 votes, so that I am now an administrator. Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page should you wish to leave any comments or ask for any help. Again, thanks a lot, AndyZ t 21:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello, Knucmo2, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 05:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion?

Hey, you sent me a message about my contributions.

I am sorry, but you had me confused with another member, although I was looking through the test page recently.

I may have changed the Missouri Compromise, but I don't remember. If I did, I'm sorry. It may have been my brother :)

Keep up the good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.65.104 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Karl Marx

Do you have a reference for this thing about Marx thinking that the replacement of capitalism by communism is 'inevitable'? I mean, I know "everyone knows" that Marx thought that, but do you actually know where he might have said it? Because I've never come across it. mgekelly 12:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do, see the talk page at Marx. --Knucmo2 12:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pac-Man

Thanks for your automated comment, it made me chuckle. Who knew a one-letter difference could cause such a fuss over time... Check the talk page. 82.92.119.11 22:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thanks for the vote in my RfA! It didn't gain consensus, but I'm really glad I accepted the nomination. - Amgine 15:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote on my RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, don't be too hard on yourself by calling your action "immature". Premature perhaps. --Knucmo2 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Hedgecock

I believe the article states taht Hedgecock's conviction for perjury was overturned. He therefore does not belong in the "Perjuror" category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.123.210.241 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 12 May 2006.

Hmmm, I was unsure. Plus I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia - it is a tertiary source of information - I'd look it up elsewhere. If you've got a source overwrite my change --Knucmo2 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi Knucmo2,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What kind of cleanup?

Dear Knucmo2, criticism always should be concrete. You demanded a cleanup of my (my=unfortuneately nobody else contributed). What exactly do you want me (or others) to do? (Brush up my English? This had better be done by a native speaker). Please let me know. Thanks and greetings hjn 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Which page are we talking about? --Knucmo2 08:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hans_Albert hjn 09:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah right yes. Well, it's not written in a professional level, but I understand that you are not a native speaker of English, in which case you've done a good job writing it in your second language. The size of the picture needs to be reduced, and moved to the right. His biography needs to be put into prose format rather than a series of bullet points. Also, the other sections containing bullet points have to be gotten rid of (don't remove the content associated with them, just incorporate it into the article - its dead easy). The article is missing external links and citations. Finally it needs copyediting for proper grammar, tone, style etc. --Knucmo2 09:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This was my idea too. Please have a look on the Version of 02:14, 23 January 2006. Maybe this is what you want and what some other friendly helper didn't like. Who is the mightier god I like to obey willingly? (if it is of any use to the reader). OK, I need some exercise in English so I will try to follow your intententions as far as I understand them correctly. Give me, please, some days and if you could specify further criticism be so kind as to put it on the discussion page of "Hans_Albert". I assure you I like criticism (it is just the kernel of Hans Albert's philosophy). Greetings hjn 10:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way is always to copy what other did better. Please, could you possibly tell me an article of this kind? hjn 10:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see on Hans_Albert I made a lot of what I hope are improvements. Therefore I think me entitled to remove the admonition. If I left some language problems please alarm a native speaker. Hans Albert is a very important German thinker translated in many languages and earned to be handled both professonally and elegantly. Thank you. hjn 08:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rmrfstar's RfA

Concerning your recent oppose vote in my RfA: You're right that there is a lack of typical "administrative actions" in my Wikipedia history, but does that mean I'm too irresponsible to use of the admin tools themselves? I don't plan on engaging in too many "administrative actions" if I become an admin; I simply am not that sort of editor. So what exactly leads you to believe that I might not be a responsible administrator? -- Rmrfstar 17:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Steady now, can you please quote where I said you would not be a responsible admin? That's right, I've said no such thing. But your lack of administrative actions implies a lack of familiarity with the policies that admins are required to follow, and also a lack of experience in areas where the going can easily get very tough for unexperienced admins (e. g. AFD). You've done hardly any reversion of vandalism (20 reverts, to my knowledge) which admins are expected to do, and admin tools give you the power to block users which non-admins have (one reason why so many rc patrollers are keen to become admins). In fact, admins are advised to keep WP:AIV on their page to assist non-admin users at RC patrol. The fact that you've brought this directly to my talk page rather than on the adminship page itself implies to me you've took this oppose vote too personally, and you've accused me of something I did not say. --Knucmo2 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're claim that I commited vandalism is pure non-sense

Your message regarding my changes to Karl Marx entry is pure non-sense and you must be clearly insane believing that my actions constituted vandalism. To make your derogatory statement clear I would like to point out to your lack of common sense the following: There were such remarks as "Fuck You" and other abusive language under one section of Karl Marx which I promptly deleted. I do NOT consider deleting derogatory statements or comments as vandalism. If you believe that saying such things as "Fuck You" is OK under any entry then you should check your head with your shrink, pal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.72.134 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Descartes Problematic Idealist

I am in no way disagreeing with your assessment that Descartes was an Idealist. But his cogito leads him to what Kant specifically calls problematic idealism - which by the way is the best way to go about philosophy according to Kant. he also makes a similar "GEM" (tautological/beggin the question) mistake in his cogito.

As such, whether he really wanted to be an idealist or not his cogito leads him to these conclusions.

cf. Descartes situation to Kant's; Kant's position could just as easily be called transcendental empiricism; many see his epistemological distinctions as almost equivalent to the popperian fallabilist/critical rationaist position which is ANTI IDEALIST in just about every possible way. Professor Michael Devitt characterises kant's position as a Weak-Realist with a negative solution to epistemology (cf. Fallabilism a positive solution to epistemology).

Any how we'll sort this out because there's no point editing and re editing the same paragraph till we sort it out amongst ourselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.80.123.40 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know what your talking about, but your misinterpretation of Kant is one for starters, and you seem to be applying fashionable epistemological labels to Kant's thought, which is really quite anachronistic. Kant was a transcendental idealist and an empirical realist, unlike Descartes, because Kant believes we are directly acquainted with objects. You can interpret it to mean whatever you want, but you must have read a different Kant to me if you think he's a transcendental realist. He's a transcendental idealist because he argued that things such as moral data do not lead to direct knowledge of things so we are able to conceive of it, and so we also have a subjective understanding of such things. If Devitt believes he is a pure realist, then he is wrong. It is also a grave mistake to compare him to Popper, who was a transcendental and empirical realist AFAIK. Descartes was a transcendental realist, believing our knowledge of objects is independent of subjective experience (God wants us to see the objects) and experience (reason detects the ideas). I'm not sure whether his cogito leads him to being an idealist; this needs more thought. --Knucmo2 11:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Chaunteathumb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chaunteathumb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

[edit] Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you, Knucmo2, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

[edit] Vandal 199.246.2.11

199.246.2.11 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) vandalised another article. [1]. Notifying you as you gave them a "last warning" and I am not an admin. -999 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Petrejo

Can't deny Paul's been fairly consistent (even as far as his seemingly trollish behavior), but if you wish to read my views on his latest contributions, then search no further. I agree with your reply to him about his suggestions to the introduction - but his aims to say Nietzsche was "anti-Christian" obscures some points he mentioned in Ecce Homo and elsewhere (that genuine Christians would not object to his thinking, how he doesn't aim to change morality but put aesthetics above it, etc.) and many other details that simply amounts to no conclusion about his supposed anti-Christian stance, except that it isn't clear and/or it is much more complicated. Least of all is it clear based on the "burgeoisie" nonsense he writes (and is therefore POV to state). Anyway, I look forward to when you decide to contribute more often - I know from a first hand basis how irritating this whole situation has been and will continue to be.Non-vandal 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw Petrejo's reply to you, and I have a simple objection to make: nowhere is Nietzsche posed as a "moralist", he was an "immoralist" (a position which goes beyond "anti-Christian", ie., it goes "beyond good and evil"). This trivializing view of Petrejo's really deserves no chance in the article, and is an obvious confusion of Kaufmann's "burgeois" position (as Petrejo likes to call it, falsely), because Kaufmann thoroughly noted this in his writings on Nietzsche. Can one say "troll" and not be considered correct here? Well, best of luck,Non-vandal 00:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

fsdfsd (I knucmo 2, wrote this)

[edit] hello Knucmo2 sorry if your busy is theBlackbay here :)

Help From fellow Wikipedians against censorship!

Thank you for your time I was wondering if i could ask your opinion?? :)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin here is the Article on G. Edward Griffin that I have just reconstructed and am still in the process of doing, But it's been put up for deletion?.

I was wondering if you could pitch in a comment in any direction you feel but I believe this man is very notable having Authored such books as The Creature from Jekyll Island a history of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, but also many many more films as well, also being a member of many organisations.

Me being an inclusionist of sorts I would rather see changes made rather than a wholesale deletion, what do you think?

The man is very notable he has been doing this sort of work since the 60’s when he created the “The Capitalist Conspiracy” one of the first and most documented histories of Political Corruption in film that I know of.

Thank you for all your help, I’m just starting out in Wikipedia I have created the Benjamin H. Freedman, article and reconstructed the The Money Masters article and some others but I need help here! Any help of mine you may need or want in any regard in the future just ask :)

Also any contribution you would like to make to improve the article please consider!

Really i wouldn't ask if i did not really think this article worthy.

-Theblackbay 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

.theblackBay. sample site