User talk:Knowledgekid87

My stress level

Revision of Tsukuyomi: Moon Phase characters

You mentioned in your comment regarding the reversion of my edits that the alternate personality, Luna, needed a separate section. If you read the original version, Luna was mentioned in 2 different paragraphs of the character description. I just consolidated that information into one section so that it wasn't repeated. I'm looking forward to your thoughts once you reread the original and my edits. Cheers!204.225.44.110 (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just finished reading a few chapters of the manga and found that some of the information in the description is incorrect - in Ch 30 it is revealed that Hazuki remembers being called Luna when she was little and before her mother started calling her Hazuki. Therefore the issue of an implanted personality may be incorrect. I'll have to read more to be sure and will wait until the above is resolved before addressing it. 204.225.44.110 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The anime and the manga differ, the source I used is for the anime but I do realize that the manga differs from this. The first section has a passing mention of Luna that is a lead in to the second section, that's how I feel about it anyways. the final 4 volumes were never released so unless you know Japanese there is a good chance that we both may never know what unfolds sadly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that since the anime is based on the mange, the manga should take priority. In any case, I'm now going to reference both of them. 204.225.44.110 (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And done. Admittedly, I did a significant rewrite, but I think that the important points are still there in addition to the additional information from the manga. Hopefully these do not meet with your disapproval. Cheers! 204.225.44.110 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Knowledgekid87, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Sorry

Hello, and I'm sorry for my actions previously. I'm going to fix everything, but I think I'll be able to help Wikipedia finally. That was really rude/disruptive of me, so I think I do owe you an apology. I just couldn't get help (and still can't), so I had to think about myself very deeply. I usually tried to avoid that. I understand now that I'm making mistakes. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 12:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@KorinoChikara: No worries im glad to see ya back =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No Word

I got a little stressed about your edit on the PPG article. There has not yet any word on whether or not the new series is going to be in CGI style format or the original 2-D animation style. Can we at least wait for further announcements in the coming weeks? Zboogie604 (talk) 2:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs)

@Zboogie604: Yeah that is fine, the sourcing though says that it will be in CGI format but im hoping here that it isn't true. If it is a new format then it needs it's own article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I'm doing the same thing. Also we don't know if the new PPG series is going to be a spin-off/sequel series, a re-imagining or just the same old girls we know and love. I just hope it gets revived like Beavis and Butthead did (don't tell anyone). P.S. If it does air, I hope it doesn't replace the original series website.contribs)

re: Character prods

I am fine with that, as long as you don't mind starting the merge discussion, or doing the merges? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I can do that later today =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about Robotech Merges

I'm concerned about your recent merges of the Robotech Character articles. For one, you are leaving out large portions of the articles in the merged page. In addition, the page List of Robotech characters is becoming very long. I think it would be better to leave the pages as they were. Your thoughts? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

@Hyperionsteel: We can either merge or delete them, another editor had placed much of the character articles up for WP:Prod this one here being an example: [1]. I figure merging is a better solution. Much of the info in the articles are un-sourced WP:OR anyways, if we are going to include that then it can always be re-written from a fans point of view post merge even though that thought makes me cringe as it is pure opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that there was yet another effort to delete Robotech articles underway (I really wish people were more open-minded about Anime articles in Wikipedia). In that case, I suppose merging the articles is our best option, and I appreciate your efforts in this regard (sorry if I came off as brash - I should have looked into this more carefully before judging your actions). Thank you for your work - We need more editors like you Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

@Hyperionsteel: Thanks =) You do have a point though, I stopped the merging as Robotech seems to overlap with Macross which is a problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What is patrolled?

Hi,

Not that I have a problem with it, but just out of interest. I got a message saying you are now patrolling me, what does that mean?

Thank you. Mr. Sort It Out2 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Sort It Out2: Nothing huge, its just an acknowledgement for WP:Reviewers here that says your user page is all okay. This patrol option appears on all newly created pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it :-) Thank you. I thought it has something to do with my multiple account editing (I used to have a different account but I forgot the password and since edited from a dynamic IP), but I always made sure to mention it (to avoid being accused of sockery), so I thought it has something to do with that. Mr. Sort It Out2 (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome and no worries =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia or tattletaleapedia

I'm on your side, Jehochman screwed up but no one will do anything because he is an admin. The only one thats being hurt here is the editor. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@108.28.162.100: Everyone makes mistakes, the block was only for 24 hours and was undone soon after, the editor in question dug the whole deeper for himself from there. Anyways I kindly ask you remove your comment from RGloucester's page as at this point it is best to leave them be. If you are looking to overturn the block then file it someplace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that the editor was upset, but I don't blame them. The admin made a mistake, several agreed, and the admin refused to apologize and now the editor has a block on their record forever regardless of its validity. This admin has a history of doing this type of poorly thought out kneejerk reactions and no one does anything. When admins screw up routinely, as this one did, it makes people leave the project. Editors cannot do anything about admins abusing editors, other admins have to do that and if they won't police themselves, which is obvious, then I have no problem with making a comment like that. Because it needs to be said. Admins are supposed to be preventing damage to the project, not causing it and then ignoring the real problems. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well seeing I have never been blocked before it doesn't really bother me here, if it were for 24 hours I would just say eh the heck with it. Just because he has a block on his record does not mean he is doomed if it does get brought up in the future the admin who was involved in issuing the block or those involved can always say "Now wait a minute". I have seen @Jehochman: make great edits and I have seen him make poor ones but in the end we are all human. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No doubt Jehochman does a lot of good edits too, unfortunately he screws up fairly often with his quick draw, block first and don't bother to give warnings or ask questions mentality. If it was some newby or a random editor I wouldn't even care. But RGlouster hasn't done a wrong thing and has done nothing but a long period of dedication to the project. Its pathetic and ridiculous for an admin like Je to continuously be able to do this sort of thing with not so much as a word mentioned to them on their talk page. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well to be fair and just saying but the issue was brought to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User RGloucester where it was discussed first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty familiar with that AndrewA character too and I have to say they are definitely not one of the better admins, more like the bottom 10%. So I wouldn't take their side over Glouster's. I also saw the ANI discussion but its utterly baseless. I don't agree with all the AFD's he submits either, but AdnrewA was clearly making statements to provoke Glouster into a situation where he could either block him or take him to ANI. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

IP, why don't you login to your account? Jehochman ^Talk 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You know full well who I am and why I didn't login, well that is you would if you bothered to even look and if you want to block me go ahead, I don't really care at this point. In an environment like this that allows one class of editor,like you and your fellow admins to to do absolutely anything you want with impunity, there is no room for editors anyway. People make mistakes, including admins, but they should apologize when they do or be held accountable when they do it often. You do a lot of good work, but you make a lot of mistakes too with regard to your admin tools and you rarely if ever admit that you make a mistake and no one is going to hold you or any other admin accountable for it. Your fellow admins and the arbcom have ensured that the community doesn't have the power to remove the tools from even the most abusive admin and they have shown repeatedly that they do not have the desire to do it themselves. So it creates an environment where once someone becomes an admin, its almost impossible to remove the tools. Now I'm not saying that's what should happen here to you, but in general, if people cared more about the project than about protecting admins, it would be a much better place and we would have a lot more editors. As it is, people do not want to edit in a police state where admins are allowed unlimited power and discretion, broadly construed, to block anyone they feel for the weakest of reasons and leave the editor with a permanent mark on the edit history and no rights because one admin didn't bother to do their due diligence and look and research before they act, because they have the mentality that they do not make mistakes and no one will do anything to them even if they do. They sure will if they are an editor though, regardless of how long term and how much work they do for the project. Any admin is free to block any editor for any reason at any time. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing section on Charlie Hebdo talk page

Oh sorry. I read the message but I thought that the other page was just past talk page data. You can undo it if you want Undescribed (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for alerting me to the draft of the storm article which was much better than the stub I had started. I very much welcome your help improving the article, and in choosing the best title for it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome. =) I will work on the article more later today. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Winter Storm Juno" unofficial naming

Thank you for that redirect towards WP:TWC. I searched for it, and couldn't find anything relevant until you sent me it.

However, if the case is that winter storms shouldn't be "named" on Wikipedia, why is it nobody has done anything about this storm?

That has a few places in the article itself in which it is referred to as "Winter Storm Nemo", with various refs backing it up. Why has that been ignored by admins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerwhale24680 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Killerwhale24680: Because there was a huge discussion on the matter with no consensus, generally though the names should be left out. Looking at reliable sources online, at least 2 other "Unofficial" names other than Juno have been dubbed for the Blizzard of 2015. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If there was no consensus, why is there even a name included on the Nor'easter of Feb. 2013? If Weather Channel names aren't considered valid, why bother including it at all? - Killerwhale24680 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, I could start up a new discussion about it as we have conflicting discussions. The current storm is also unofficially called "Colbie" [2] we cant please everyone here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If the name is used in sources, it should be used in the article. The fact that "Juno" does not appear in the article is absurdity to the highest degree. Even the BBC, as reliable as new outlets get, and an outsider with distance, uses "Juno". That little essay is not a policy or guideline, and has no basis in anything. If it is commonly used in sources, it needs to appear in the article, just as it was with Nemo. Comparing "Juno" to minor names no one has heard of like "Colbie" is a non-starter, and the exact same canard that was tried last time. RGloucester — ☎ 00:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We already had a consensus on this that the names are invalid if you want to restart the discussion take it to the article's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No such consensus exists. How can a name be "invalid" if a state of New Jersey official press release uses it? Absurity. A common name is never invalid. RGloucester — ☎ 00:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you not seen the link in the essay? Consensus was reached back in 2012 when this whole thing started TWC uses the names as promotion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't just TWC that uses the names, so that argument is moot. Is the state of New Jersey promoting TWC? I doubt it. Is the BBC promoting TWC? I doubt it. That's an absurd argument. 2012 be damned, this is a common name for the storm, and it must appear in the article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The NWS does not use the names and have asked other's to refrain from doing so, if you want to add the name as I said start a discussion on the talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

NWS is irrelevant. See WP:UCN, which I'm sure you are familiar with. I'm not getting myself involved in something I don't care about, but this is another absurdity, just as with Nemo. If people call a storm something, it should appear. Allowing the "Blizzard of 2015" thing to appear, much less common than Juno, but not allowing "Juno" is in itself not neutral, because that's excluding the name on the basis of value judgement you are making about the name. If RS other than TWC use the name, then they have deemed it not promotional, and that means we can use it too. RGloucester — ☎ 00:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also WP:PROMOTION to think of [3], just because a RS uses something doesn't always mean we should. It is a heated debate [4] and you want to put Wikipedia into the middle of it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As you are not British, perhaps you're not aware of the strict non-promotional guidelines that the BBC has. This is to the point, for example, that a well-liked chef on a cookery programme was forced off the air because he endorsed a brand of potato. The BBC would not use the term if it was promotional, pure and simple. What's more, even if the term is deemed non-neutral, it still must be mentioned by the article. You can't censor a common name, obfuscating the edification of the readers. You can say "the storm was frequently called such and such by many people, but the validity of this name was questioned", but you certainly can't ignore it completely. RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay then how does "and controversially named Juno" sound? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow the Nemo example, and add a "naming section", explaining the "controversy". Include the frequently used names in the lead, with citations. RGloucester — ☎ 00:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I will put in the info when the article settles down, thanks for the advice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I am a week-and-a-half late to saying this, but is the use of such a title necessarily a violation of WP:NPOV? I actually understand that concept of "it is easier to recognize the storm being referred to" when using The Weather Channel's names even though I don't use them personally. Also, in some circumstances where the name is used frequently enough, winter storm names might warrant a mention in the lead section of articles. Maybe that can be mentioned somewhere? Perhaps that is their purpose, but is there actual proof that the names are purely promotional? Yes, it would not be good practice to use these as titles, but should there not be some sort of section at the new essay discussing usage in the lead sections of articles? I think this is worth consideration. In any case, those are just my thoughts. Dustin (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Nice work on the citations for Chi (Chobits)!

AngusWOOF (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Thanks, hopefully it can become a good article. Given how outside sources are so hard to come by regarding anime/manga characters I have to say im lucky on what I have found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't interfere if you're not paying attention

The map you should restored has not been updated since November. The original map depicts the progression of territorial control as it happened historically until August, when the last significant territorial changes took place. The map you added does not show the progression, only the outdated November update, and hence has no use whatsoever. We have no maps of the current situation, and given this, we should use the one that shows the territorial progression, not the stagnant one with no update. Keep in mind that territorial control did not change in the span of August 2014 to late January 2015. Please revert yourself at once, so we are not left with a crap map that has no use. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not "five months out-of-date". No changes took place between 31 August 2014 and January 2015, because of the Minsk Protocol. It is only out-of-date as of the Donetsk airport battle. It is much more useful than the map you put in, which does not show the historical progression. RGloucester — ☎ 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The historical progression is nice but it goes against what the timeline says, I feel that there is a more recent map out there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

How does it "go against what the timeline says"? What "timeline"? There is no "more recent map". RGloucester — ☎ 01:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chi (Chobits)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chi (Chobits) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:Rebecca Black

Regarding this edit, I found the award for Choice Web Collaboration on the TCA website here, with the winner being Troye Sivan and Tyler Oakley - The "Boyfriend" Tag. The page only showed the winners, but the Hollyfood Reporting has an article featuring the nominees as well here. WeezleBeezle (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chi (Chobits)

The article Chi (Chobits) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chi (Chobits) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For asking about my identity. I appreciate it more than you may realize, so here's a kitten.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel strongly that the name Juno should be in the first line of the Blizzard of January 2015 article?

I put a note in talk Talk:January_2015_North_American_blizzard#The_use_of_the_TWC_name_in_the_first_line_is_an_endorsement_of_TWC. You seem interested in this, so, I'd love to hear your opinion. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chi (Chobits)

The article Chi (Chobits) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chi (Chobits) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on your hard work! :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks =) Thank you for your help as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A request

Hi KK, I think it would help if you were to stop posting about RO and the SPI. You were the top poster to the SPI page, plus all your posts about it elsewhere. All it serves to do is increase the heat. If you'd like things to calm down, the best way is to lead by example. Cheers, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I would love for the issue to end but of course you know Wikipedia as much as I do that it just doesn't happen. [5][6]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

One voice fewer would help at this point. I'll try to take my own advice and leave it there. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you too, I will just let it drop, I have been trying to help RO out though as she has been through a-lot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

KK87, I appreciate that you were there to defend me while so many others were attacking. SV says that more voices to the discussion is bad, but she pinged an editor who called me a cunt and another who harassed me all over Wikipedia for 6 weeks that I agreed to an IB with. Thanks for being there, if not for you and Viriditas, I would have had little support. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to put blame on SV here as maybe she didn't know about the cunt thing (I hope not). I feel it is best going forward is to put this SPI behind us and either voluntary staying away from each other for like a week, or through WP:AN seek an IB between you and Victoria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

KK87, SV linked to this thread at SPI, which clearly states that the editor she pinged had called an admin a cunt, and later clarified that they were referring to me, as they edit warred to keep the slur at talk. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Id like to WP:AGF but SV if you are watching I don't see how it was helpful to ping someone who has had a bad past with RO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

She pinged an editor who had been indeffed for harassing me to pile it on; it was no accident. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Right now I think you should try to go back to normal editing, this isn't right I know but here on Wikipedia things like these build up over time. Going to WP:ANI about it for example is just going to cause other editors to rehash the SPI case all over again and it will be a mess. Hopefully it ends here, if not then the small things will sadly add up into a case that would be in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I like your controbutions to Wikipedia, and are happy that you like manga if you can I would like one of your Manga drawings.

Glistensnow (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks =) I haven't drawn in awhile but can show you what I have done via youtube. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you, Knowledgekid87, for your kind comments at [7] about my quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia to improve articles related to freedom of speech and censorship to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA. Please also note that the article includes commentary from secondary sources written by women, including: Carly Milne, Regina Lynn, Annalee Newitz of AlterNet, author Violet Blue, author Audacia Ray, Bonnie Ruberg of The Village Voice, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Jessica Roy of The New York Observer, author Sarah Schaschek -- indeed, the majority of the secondary-source-commentary in the article itself is cited to female authors. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making offensive comments about other editors on User talk:Rationalobserver. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   DDStretch  (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

the exact reason for your block is because of this text you added to Rationalobserver's talk page that merely inflames things unacceptably by attacking a number of named editors! "... [a] circle of editors here on Wikipedia who defend each other like crazy. Your mistake was going to Drmies for help, if you look at Corbett's talkpage history you will know why. Anyways I hope you come back after all of this I cant say I blame you though if you want to call it quits. I believe you are innocent here, you asked for help on Eric's talkpage and while Eric did turn down your offer Montana made things worse by ganging up on you." here. Enough of this shit-stirring!  DDStretch  (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Knowledgekid87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My choice of wording may have not been the best with aspersions cast, I had already linked the edit's in question further down on Rational's userpage but a 72 hr block without warning based on these words? I would be happy to retract the comment made and apologize for any disruption. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Calling other editors' characters into question was simply uncalled for. To say your choice of wording "may have not been the best" is an understatement. Take the block, take some time off, then come back with the knowledge that this is what happens when you attack other editors. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

(talk page stalker) @Ddstretch and Coffee: Y'all think KK's comments were bad, perhaps Black Kite need a block as well... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have seen far worse comments made in recent days as well, the difference though like in life is how high on the totem pole you are. Thanks for your comment Evergreen, blocking me might make others feel better but it isn't going to fix the parent problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Good grief! I will agree that the remarks may have been intemperate but I have seen much worse w/o any kind of sanction. In fact if this is a justified block there is one editor who should have been given a fairly long term block based on things said about me and some other editors. I'm not an admin but FWIW this looks like an over-reaction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I appreciate the fact that you were sticking up for me, that was very loyal, but I don't want you to get in trouble. I strongly suggest that you commit to voluntarily refraining from commenting about certain people, as you and I are not suited to this role, and anything we say will have little effect anyway. I.e., just agree to leave this stuff to others. Any serious problems will be picked up by uninvolved people, but this is not our place to try to enforce anything. Just busy yourself improving the project, and forget about the recent dramas. But most of all, promise to stop involving yourself in these discussions. That's my speech, take it or leave it, but please don't get yourself into trouble defending me. Okay? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That is what I plan on doing once I come back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Coffee: Based on all of the recent crap that has gone on over the last few hours you still think my attacking editors block for 72 hours is justified? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've now had to block multiple editors, some of which are apparently great content creators, due to personal attacks. There is no room for it here, and I've just about lost my patience. You're block stands just as much as Giano's does... when it's over I suggest you stay far away from any form of drama. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Coffee: Would you mind protecting my page during the block? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Knowledgekid87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Given Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Misconduct from User:Coffee could I have an uninvolved admin look at my case? I want to continue editing and put all of this drama behind me. Knowledgekid87 (talk)11:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+8)

Accept reason:

As the blocking admin, Knowledgekid87 has reassured me that he will be avoiding any drama from now on and be concentrating on writing content, which is really what we are all supposed to be doing here.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87. Obviously, I am involved, but as the blocking admin, I think I am able to reverse my own block. Just explain a little of what you intend to do if I unblocked you, and let's see what happens. I do think you have been drawn into something it is better to stay out of, and I am sure that you can continue to be a productive contributor of content by staying out contentious areas. Just explain what you propose to do if I unblocked you.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to continue my editing of Anime and manga related articles, I have a proposal here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#BLP Problem and have been working on these: [8]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. And can you explain what you will be doing about getting involved in all this drama? It really should be easy to just concentrate on writing content, surely...  DDStretch  (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do think Knowledgekid87 is a good guy underneath his recent behavior. Is he going to stop his unwavering support of the bad behaviour of certain editors, especially Rationalobserver whom he encouraged to continue in her destructive ways? I suggest he sticks to content writing unless an issue involves his behavior or article subject matter of concern to him on a noticeboard or another editor's talk page? EChastain (talk)

EChastain, if you have a problem with Rational you should sort it out with her, this isn't about supporting or withdrawing support for editors its about staying away from the drama. A person can be supportive without going too deep into it. You should focus more on content yourself too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with drama here is that seeing editors can edit a wide variety of things people get caught up in it. I have been following Rational's talkpage but will refrain from doing so as that is what got me sucked into it. I cant promise you that drama wont follow me as it does to everyone I feel in a way, but will do my best to avoid it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, I understand that. My advice is to never get drawn into a "cat fight", as invariably, you'll end up with scratches and bites. Sometimes it is necessary, but often it's more trouble than it's worth. It can be difficult to prevent oneself from being drawn into some drama, but i think we have to try that for own own good, often. Ok. I will unblock you on the understanding that you'll avoid drama and stop hovering around these drama-fests. If you get drama imposed on you, and it really isn't your own doing, let me know. I'll deal with the unblocking now.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I just hope it stops soon, there has been a-lot going on in the recent months and im tired of seeing editors leaving. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)