User talk:Knicholls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Some Advice

You must be really dumb. You spelt advice wrong and i changed it. Do you have a life since all you do is go on Wikipedia and fix it? Give me a break—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.235.254 .

Actually, it was Lookuman who entered it as "advise". And nothing smacks harder of irony than a spammer telling me to get a life. Kevin 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Knicholls , i suggest you adopt similar standards for all articles in wikipedia, its really strange that you decided to revert the article on brahmins to an earlier date, because i added the names of some notable brahmins, but why is not the same thing applied to articles about kammas', kapus' etc. Did you not see them or did you choose to ignore them??? i reverted the article on brahmins back to my previous edit and would not mind even if it is removed only if you remove all such similar articles.

Keep this in mind:you are not the sole custodian of wikipedia, do something useful, try to contribute something useful instead of wasting your time correcting other people—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lookuman (talk • contribs) .


I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Johnson Elementary, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Johnson Elementary. If you remove the {{dated 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. --Frankie 04:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism warnings

Thanks for reporting vandalism at WP:AIV. However, please don't use the {{test5}} template, as that produces a "You have been blocked" message. (Since you can't block users, you shouldn't use that template.) Depending on the severity of the vandalism and whether the person is a repeat offender, you can use {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, or {{test4}}. Also, please sbst the templates. Thanks. Thatcher131 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks 4 th'Diligence

That was some great cleanup you did on the Criticism section of the Zune page. I'm often discouraged by the "slash and hack first,.. contribute later" policies of most edits. I may not fully understand the standards of a criticism section, but the logical part of me exepects to see a summary of things criticised, and references to critics (of note)... you made it so, and I appreciate the diligence. [original "criticism" contributor]

[edit] Now your just following me

Look, the Troy edits demanding citations that you've made prove that your just following me around wiki-pedia. I didn't put any links in there, I just reduced bias of a pre-existing lengthy POV analysis rather than completely deleting as your style would have me do. Any complaints you have about my edits are because the pre-existing framework was laid in place by some Democratic operative. I made no effort to write it favorable to either Dems or Republicans - I simply reduced it, reworded it to NPOV, and let some of the obvious (to people who are experts in the field and geography) points stand. Troy is affluent in the sense that its average income (contained in the demographics chart on the page0 are above average -- on the other hand, if you want to ax that is as editorialization, fine. I didn't put it in there in the first place. Look at what I edited and tell me that wasn't biased, and that I didn't substantially improve it. However, I'm not out to destroy everything that someone else contributes - I tried to rephrase it to be NPOV. If you can do better, do so -- but don't expect me to source obvious things like "Troy is affluent" even though the editor originally using that phrase used it to "spin" in favor of Democrats.

But the real point is that you've now targeted me for everything I write, and that is unreasonable.Chetlyzarko 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On the Clawson Talk Page [1], I put down some additional comments. Regardless, I tire of this. I deleted the Troy section down to its bare minimum, correcting the blatant Democratic POV that you didn't correct over a longer period of time and then when I pared it down you critiqued it as non-sourced (it wasn't sourced for months). Fine. If you can tell me that the version I posted wasn't better than its predecessor, I look forward to hearing the reasoning. But with your encouragement and consensus, I've deleted it all.Chetlyzarko 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)