User talk:Knulclunk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The graffiti edit was just cleaning up some Wikraffiti. My first repair effort, so please let me know if I did it correctly!

Contents

[edit] Kent State

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)

[edit] The Kent State Issue

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)

[edit] Kent State Image Name

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)

[edit] Links to disambigs

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)

[edit] Re: Disambiguation Help

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)

[edit] Your invitation to stay

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)

[edit] massacres

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)


[edit] Citations request

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)

[edit] Spink!

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

[edit] Susan Block

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)

[edit] CEC Logo

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)

[edit] Inclusion of Waco

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)

[edit] Kent State (again)

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)

[edit] Editing User talk: Defender 911

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/n/u/User_talk%7EKnulclunk_07a6.html"