This is an archive of past discussions with User:KNHaw. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Jim Baen's Universe, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Jim Baen's Universe satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Baen's Universe and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Jim Baen's Universe during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fairsing 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good writing. I removed two sentences and did some copy-editing. (The statement about pay rates to authors doesn't belong in an encyclopedia; neither does a statement about alleged conformity of policy with the late Baen's philosophy of publishing. That's OR at least.) The Articleissues template is gone. I think the article's notability is well established, it's clearly written, interesting, and I've voted Keep at the AfD discussion. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Save for Eric's been editor in chief since the git-go. I added a link to his site, which you can check now and then for news on JBU. If you read between the lines, Baen's elecronic policies really didn't get going until he helped nudge them along... There's a big relation between the First Librarian and e-ARCs and of course, the free library. But when it came to DRM, the two had and have the same fire in their eyes. "SALVOS AGAINST BIG BROTHER" indeed!

Also, you can also check facts with relationship stuff Rboatright... or ask for information. See my talk (the link) and his bottom. Like everyone else, I thought webscriptions was Baen's until that post. Then confirmed that with Arnold Bailey... I even cited and quoted that, as he was answering me, and it's online. AGF and all that. I'm glad someone's doing a good job on this... it's bothered me I never got back to it... see, I beat you by some two weeks but was just enqueing for my to-do list, when it got slammed by Afd with "my title". I never got back to it, as summer came on and I'd been swamped before that on other sister projects work... summer gets so busy I still haven't caught up... and so forth, so I'm really glad you did the creation when you did.

Now to tie it in properly to the other Baen related articles... you really have saved me a lot of work! Thanks! RU a barfly? It ticks me off that 1632 Tech Manual was "redirected and merged" as being a website, and they never notified me to defense it at Afd. That's another story, since it shouldn't have been considered solely on web notability simply because someone added a cat of being a web related page. It's also part of the 1632 series, and AfD had it's head up it's ass. Looks like that Gavin Collins Jack Ass does too. Great defense, making him put out what was wrong so it could be addressed. You'd probably be fun to play at chess! Nice to meetchya! "Jes call me Mr. 1632! // FrankB 02:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Moon Crescent - False Color Mosaic.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 4, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-04-04. howcheng {chat} 05:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BlackGateMagazineCover Issue1 2.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The change I made, that was reverted by you, was correct. The name of the firebat in Starcraft is in fact a reference to Fahrenheit 451,but the unit itself is ot called Guy Montag. Guy is instead spelled Gui, as I had changed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.54.160 (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed your edit because you did not cite any sources, your edit was nonintutive (specifically to someone familiar with the book but not the video game like myself), you are using an anonymous login, and had edited a page that is the frequent target of vandalism. In most cases these are all warning signs of vandalism - in this case I'm willing to concede that I'm wrong. The fact that you came back and redid it and (more importantly) explained your action to me is enough for me to take you at your word. Thanks for taking the time to contribute - I am sorry to have misjudged you.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 04:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Pini Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the vandalism templates. But why does this guy need more than one warning for putting the filth that he put on my userpage? I don't feel anyone should get 3 chances for putting words like that, although he's had more than 3 already. He's also an IP address, which from what I've read makes it hard to block.Atlantabravz (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the information. It is invaluable. You have been a great help. I wish more users were like you.Atlantabravz (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely up to you on how much work you want to do. We keep a list of tasks that need to be done and we also have a monthly colaborations on an article, but you are not required to do those unless you want to. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternate History is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active editor, please add your name back to the Active members list. You can also list yourself as a Supporter if you feel you cannot dedicate the time necessary to be an active member.

Please also see the Project talk page for more information concerning this Call Out. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Saint Vidicon, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Vidicon. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jack Merridew 12:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You had written on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Vidicon "As the article creator, though, I would prefer to abstain from the formal voting here."

It's perfectly fine for you to vote but the vote should demonstrate why the article should be kept per WP:N and/or the WP:N section for the subject area the article belongs in. For example, I just voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xnee with a keep but gave my reasoning and later when I had time I updated the article. Usually when I give my reasoning others will then add votes per that reasoning. No one did that in this case meaning my argument was not that persuasive. :-) Maybe that's because the xnee of Wikipedia is not a particularly high traffic or high emotion area. I have no idea how the AfD closing editor will handle it but it's likely keep due to no consensus both because there were so few votes and that there are both delete and keep. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kirelean photography. Since you had some involvement with the Kirelean photography redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — MrX 21:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:KNHaw. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

We must have edit conflicted on the revert and warning cycle. Meters (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't *think* there was a conflict, per se. I thanked you because you reverted a missed vandal edit first before I could get to it. I didn't step on an edit of yours, did I?

--KNHaw ^(talk) 19:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on my Michael Moore page edit. Ksenia llc (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a question about the article I just published: Draft:NerdLab_YYC

Could you walk me through why it was created in Drafts and how I can move it from Drafts to an actual published page?

Thank you, Ksenia llc (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

By default, any new article appears first as a draft so you cna work on it without it being criticized or critiqued. You have to move it into the normal namespace to make it part of Wikipedia proper. See here for details.

I skimmed over the article and have a suggestion, which you are free to take or ignore. Because it is rather short and still an "in work" project, I think you should mark it as a "Stub" article. Wikipedia:Stub has more details on this, but basically you put the article out there for others to share but it's understood that there is still work to be done. Mothership HackerMoms is a good example of a stub Makerspace/Hackerspace stub article.

To mark something as a stub, you normally add {{stub}}, but I would suggest {{nonprofit-org-stub}} instead to mark it as a non-profit. You should also look at the categories at the bottom of Mothership HackerMoms or the infobox at the top to see if they might apply to your article.

As I said - just a suggestion. It's your choice on how you want to edit your article.

Let me know if you have any questions!

--KNHaw ^(talk) 21:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed that you are deleting my edits without any explanation.

You are a volunteer at wiki pedia thats great have you processed or picked up the serious complaint made referring the Article that i have contributed to.

You are letting other people delete my edits which are referenced with reliable sources...can u explain why?

I genuinely don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindmind (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out to me on my talk page. Regarding your questions, if you look at your edits to Ismail ibn Musa Menk, you can see that I reverted a single edit by you on March 2, 2018 (see here). I did that because you were removing well sourced criticisms without any discussion of why you were doing this. The normal place to discuss this would be on the talk page for the article, here. I have not made any more reverts on your edits since then because on some of the edits I felt I was not qualified to comment and on others there were other users reverting your changes.

In the past seven days, you have made many more modifications, a number of which have been reverted by users other than me. There have even been comments on your talk page by some of those other users (specifically Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) and MontyKind (talk · contribs)) asking you discuss these changes on the talk page, but you haven't.

I understand that there are a lot of confusing processes on Wikipedia and that it can be easier to ignore people reverting your work than engaging with them, but you really owe it to yourself to bring up your changes on the talk page here. Until you actually discuss your changes and explain why they should be in the article on the talk page, you're going to continue seeing them reverted and may eventually be banned from Wikipedia.

So, that's why I reverted your edit on March 2nd and why you are seeing more reverts of your edits now. You say I am "letting other people delete my edits," but I am just an editor like you. I can't "let" people do anything any more than you can.

Like I said, if you really belive your edits are important and that the world deserves to see them, please discuss your changes on the talk page. That is the only way you will ever see them in the article.

Thanks! --KNHaw ^(talk) 00:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! My first wiki page published:)

Ksenia llc (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Awww! I will name her Fluffy and cherish her always. Thanks! --KNHaw ^(talk) 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate your continual reversion of the edits being made to the Ace Ventura: Pet Detective page in an effort to remove my section about transphobia. I feel that it's an important piece of history to have highlighted for that particular film & it's nice to see someone else out there standing up to the unnecessary vandalism. Thanks!!

- Ghostsax (talk) 9:16, 16 March 2018 (EST)

It's good to know it's appreciated. Thanks! --KNHaw ^(talk) 15:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi KNHaw, thank you for all of your anti-vandalism work! One small note however, when an editor (whether registered or an IP) blanks their talk page, please don't restore it unless it violates the few conditions listed at WP:BLANKING (e.g. declined unblock requests on current sanctions, shared IP headers). This is explained in further detail at WP:DRC. Thanks! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was never entirely sure of the policy. I've read it now and will know not to mess with it.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 20:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

...and again...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi KNHaw, there are no known written sources I could cite, except my experience as a student as Wissahickon High School and an organizer of the protests against clear backpacks. Everything I wrote was true, although I understand that you have no way of knowing that. How do we proceed in a case like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.222.238 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of all of the sources that exist about the incident, because I was following it closely at the time. There are none that mention the student antics. I think it's an important part of the history of the event to mention the different tactics students used to resist or subvert the rule, but there is no documentation of their approaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.222.238 (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there really needs to be documentation of specifics if they're to be added to an article. The simple fact is that Wikipedia is not a primary source - that is, it exists as a digest/accumulation of information from other sources (although, yes, there are many, many times it fails that test - it's not difficult to find counter examples). The general rule is that if someone else did not document it in a third party source, then not only can it not be verified but it isn't notable enough to be detailed here. See wp:sources for more details.

In the meantime, I want to thank you again for helping edit Wikipedia constructively. Please don't be discouraged. There are many, many other articles here that could use attention from interested parties and I suspect it would be easy to find some that could use your help and expertise. And, as always, feel free to reach out to me with any questions you might have.

Thanks! --KNHaw ^(talk) 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm KNHaw. I noticed that you recently removed content from Optical heterodyne detection without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KNHaw (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, user cems2 here. I'm the originator and primary curator of the optical heterodyne page. I made the change that I did for the reason discussed in the "TALK" section of the associated article. The point is inserting gratuious links to applications does not belong in the summary. It needs it's own section on applications. I preserved the references that I removed in the Talk section for later incoporations when there is a suitably mature collection of these. The listed set removed are actually not even mainstream app;lication despite being interesting and clever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.7 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

First, thanks for reaching out to me. I was concerned because I originally saw you had not brought it up on the talk page. That's why I reverted the edit. After I saw your second edit and saw you were bringing it up, I decided to let it be. As long as there's tracability on the talk page, I will stay out of it as I am (admittedly) not an expert.

Also, you indicate you are user_talk:Cems2, but your edits are coming up as being on an anonymous IP. I'm not sure if that is intentional or not, but I thought you should know.

Happy editing! --KNHaw ^(talk) 22:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

How can I need a reference for this? It's clear from looking at the very maps included in the article that Asia Minor is west of the Caucasus region, not east. You're travelling from Tbilisi to Trebizond--what direction are you going?

Not to mention nothing else past the first sentence of the lede is cited, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Georgia

173.226.63.104 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I made an error in looking at the map too quickly. I have restored your version and will delete the warnings on your talk page.

Thank you for editing. I (and all of Wikipedia) do appreciate constructive editing like yours. I sincerely hope I have not discouraged you from making future contributions.

Thanks again! --KNHaw ^(talk) 21:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

From looking at the revision history I got you mixed up with the person who's doing the heavy lifting on the page and kind of assumed it was a snap-revert. Sorry about the snippiness.

173.226.63.104 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I did do the revert too quickly without examining the content, so there's that. Thanks for bringing it up, though. The last thing I want to do is *add* an error.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 18:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I added a reference to a daily news article that confirms the links between the Governor and Sempra Energy, and also discusses resident's concerns.

Please let me know if the edit requires further work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonsanddaughtersporterranch (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'm still a little concerned that the statement "Residents of Porter Ranch have continued to express concern that Governor Brown..." is overly broad. Could you find a source for that as well? Something that lays out those specific concerns in the source? I won't revert your edit as-is over it, but I think it'll make your edit stronger.

Thanks for editing! --KNHaw ^(talk) 20:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just so you're aware, it's generally considered acceptable for users to remove warnings from their own talk page. In the case of this IP it's somewhat different because they replaced the warnings with vaguely insulting rubbish, but I don't think that's deserving of a level 4 warning - I'd recommend just restoring the warnings and leaving it at that. Thanks for fighting the good fight! ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 21:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

“Hello, I'm KNHaw. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Mark Ruffalo, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! KNHaw (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)”

You definitely made a mistake here. Citation was NOT necessary for that edit. The information about Zika, LGBTQ and abortion were all lumped into one paragraph, so I merely separated it into three separate ones by inserting a couple of these: ⏎. Can u explain why you think citation is needed for pressing the Enter key? To my knowledge the segments in question already had sources added by previous authors at the time of my edit, and in any case I did not add or delete any new information here, merely organized the existing data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.179.165 (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(Copy of comment on user's page)

Thank you for reaching out to me on my talk page. I had to review the edit because it was nearly two months ago, but when I read it in context you were indeed correct in your edit.

Just to be clear, the separation of the paragraphs was not the issue that set off (false) red flags for me. It was the addition of the sentence "Bomer is openly gay." It wasn't until I reread the section that I understood you were merely adding context to the discussion of Matt Bomer. Since I missed that context in my haste, I thought it was a vandal edit with the paragraph change an attempt to camouflage it (a common vandalism tactic). I was, however, wrong.

Thank you for restoring your edit and for coming to me about the issue. I am sorry that I made a mistake and will keep an eye out to avoid similar errors in the future.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page, below. Happy editing!

--KNHaw ^(talk) 17:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Kelsey Wilson (snowboarder), is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I see that you only copied the text from another article, but it is still an obvious hoax. Please be more careful in the future.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I did more searching and came up with no evidence. I will not contest. --KNHaw ^(talk) 16:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It is obviously not your fault, but it might be useful to know rhat articles about Olympic champions get created withing five minutes of the announcement of the result. If an article about an Olympic champion (or, in fact, participant - we are now talking about the 2004 Olympics and later) get created four years after the event this is a red flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was watching for other signs of vandalism, but hadn't been considering the posisbility of a hoax. I'll keep it in mind (as well as your advice on Olympic articles) in the future. --KNHaw ^(talk) 20:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Independent not a left wing newspaper? This isn't vandalism it literally says so further down the page. It literally says its a left wing newspaper. Now can I please update the page?

Thanks for reaching out to me. Please see my comments on your talk page. --KNHaw ^(talk) 23:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I am new to Wikipedia and apologize for my unintended "disruptive editing" on my first edit. Minutes after publishing I corrected a typo and then expanded on my reference (not sure if this was disruptive). However, to avoid the risk of being blocked, I would like to know if the following template is appropriate and the reason why if its not:

Re: List of predictions

This entry has evolved from the late theologian's (H. Camping) 11013 BC creation timeline leading to the final observance of the 5778 Hebrew year. (my reference would include two pdf articles)

////

Before moving forward, I am again reviewing wiki's Intro & Getting started links; but I would appreciate your guidance / critique on the above draft if possible.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobJasey (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello KNHaw. Your revert of my tag to List of Syrian Civil War barrel bomb attacks is not productive to generating Wikipedia's encyclopedic content. I've flagged in accordance with WP:BARE issues which I raised in the article talk page (prior to you revert my tag). It is also an issue that has been raised previously by others without being addressed. The tag is not article content, and neutrality is not the issue here, the issue I've tagged is about reliable sources. Single media reports on incidents are not reliable, especially some of the ones used in the article. I suggest you discuss on the article talk page, why you think they are neutral, if not I will rollback your edit. Alternatively, I can go through and tag/remove instances in the list that appear unreliable. Aeonx (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out to me. You have convinced me that your edits are in good faith and that the tag you added itself can stay while the discussion is ongoing on the talk page. I have restored your tag and feel the discussion on the talk page will help make the article better.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 18:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay I have added referencing to my claims. This isn't just me as I've just noticed another man today make an argument based on the principles of Modern Liberalism. I am not vandalising. I have made other notable contributions such as on the "shadow-banning" page where I not only updated the page to include the comments made by Donald Trump, but also reversed an edit made by a crafty user who thought it was funny to add "illegally elected" in front of "President". Look at the history if you want.

The referencing I have included is both a fact checking/bias checking website and a reference from a graduate in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from the University of Oxford. The fact that it's "from Quora" doesn't in any way affect the judgement of the graduate in question on the matter and bears no relevance.

Of course, when referring to updating the political slant of something like a newspaper, there is no "hard evidence" per se such as scientific data, but one rather has to make a judgement based on the actions and political stances within the publication itself. Even further down the page itself it begins to make reference to the newspaper's changing political stance. I am currently a Politics student myself and I find it reprehensible that one wouldn't respect the views of another graduate in the subject from a world class university based on where he chooses to make such a judgement regarding the paper.

Is there anything more I need to say? Do I need to endlessly trawl the internet and every single place that makes reference to the changing political stance of this paper to the point where there will be a (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) reference number list next to the words "left leaning"? What will it take to get this page updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.197.137 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for my reply. --KNHaw ^(talk) 23:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason you gave KPenstemon a {{uw-biog4im}} (and not e.g. 1im) warning when they had no prior edits/warnings? I've just reverted another of their edits to Aimee Challenor. If the 4im was given for a particular reason (e.g. suspected sock) then they should probably be reported to AIV, but normally two edits would not warrant a block report. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that up. My warning was an error. I had not realized the individual in the article had actually transitioned in gender - I had thought the edit was a transphobic comment (i.e. accusing someone of being transgender as a way of slurring them). Given that it was a simple addition of a claimed birth name I should have simply asked for a source on the edit (i.e. given a level 1 warning on that). I have removed my warning, apologized, and asked the editor for a source of their claim so I (or they) can redo the edit.

I was not assuming wp:good faith as I should have. I appreciate you bringing this up so I can correct this.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 23:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Add ping - @Bilorv: - --KNHaw ^(talk) 23:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits to their talk page. We all make mistakes and ultimately, I think no harm was done. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not have a source for the edit, but it follows clearly from the fact that the traditional attacks assume the key is shorter than the ciphertext.

GirkovArpa (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I updated the article according to your advice.

GirkovArpa (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello KNHaw. Puerto Ricans use the word "país" (country in Spanish) when we talk about Puerto Rico, it has nothing to do with politics, it is the way we talk about the island. I'm leaving you a link to the country's main newspaper, El Nuevo Día, you will see how they use the word "país" regularly when referring to Puerto Rico: https://www.elnuevodia.com/topicos/mensajedesituaciondelestadodelpaisypresupuesto/

I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding, so the word "country" can be used. Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelangelus (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

As an FYI, this IP edit is not vandalism - just unsourced. It is, in fact, revealed in season 3 episode 2 that Ed is gay. --B (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kevin. Oh I would love to do a Racial Portrayal Controversies section. The arguments put forth of the dark skin of the hebrews fascinates me a lot if you haven't noticed lol. It makes sense with the geographical location of Israel. Along with authors such as Rudolph windsor, Tudor Parfitt and Edith Bruder to name a few. So yes definitely would love to do that section. Yes please Indeed ! ElijahTheTishbite (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kevin,

I don't know what kind of reference you are looking for. I am Mathew Perrone, and I purchased the shirt in that Profiles in History Auction. I have the invoice as well as the shirt. The only reason I noticed this error was because somebody contacted me asking about the custom display I had Tom Spina create for it. Please let me know what additional information you need.

Thank you.

Mat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.73.61 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Mat, please see your talk page for my response. --KNHaw ^(talk) 22:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I have the invoice from the auction with that exact purchase amount. My guess is he was the original owner and gave it to Profiles to sell at Auction and I bought it. Ironically, I think I may even have the companion book that he wrote. As for a Citation, I didn't notice one for Mr. Zicare's purchase. If you give me an E-mail address I will E-mail you the invoice, which I still have from Profiles in history and also a picture of the shirt on the display I had built. In fact there is actually still a picture up on tom Spina's website too.

Mat, thanks for your willingness to work on this. I appreciate your willingness to do the homework and send the invoice, although (and yes, I know this sounds weird) while it might be proof it is not a citation (i.e. online article or source showing that proof).

However, in the spirit of assuming good faith (wp:good faith), I think it's best if we do the following: Why don't you restore the edit you made? I will not modify it, although I can't guarantee someone else might. If they do, we can raise the issue on the talk page for the article. Then we'd need to hash it out there but, as I said, that would only happen if someone else reverts your edit.

Again, I understand if this might be frustrating but I really do appreciate you taking the time to make sure the article is correct.

Thanks! --KNHaw ^(talk) 00:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for working with me on this Kevin, I appreciate it. I assure you I have the only shirt, I wouldn't be wasting your time otherwise. I'm going to put the rest of my props online eventually to avoid this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.73.61 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I am confused by your issue with my edit. I provided a reliable source for my edit on the Harley Quinn page. Batman and Harley Quinn is considered to be canon and shows Dick Grayson to be the last person to our knowledge to have had relations with Harley Quinn before Batman Beyond occurs. This would make him the likely grandfather of the Dee Dee's would it not? Berrto2 (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(Dupe of edit to user's talk page...)

Thanks for reaching out to me on this. I appreciate people double checking my work.

Regarding your edit, my apologies. I missed the youtube link. I will not remove your edit, but I did fix a minor formatting error in it. If you could double check my fix to be sure I didn't mess anything up, I would appreciate it.

In the grand scheme of things, be aware that if the youtube link ever gets a copyright takedown, you'll wind up with a dead link. For that reason, they usually prefer links to written commentaries/summaries/etc for references over video links (see Wikipedia:Video_links for more details). However, that's something you can deal with when/if it happens.

Thanks again for contributing and my apologies for not being more thorough. I hope my mistake doesn't sour you on your experience as an editor. You called me out in a polite, constructive manner, which is exactly how the system is supposed to work. I appreciate that.

Also, welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, please don' hesitate to ask me on my talk page.

Hello KNHaw, It's WIKI_BOI1015, Why are you accusing me of vandalism and disruption of the KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT? I literally just wanted to help, that's all . Plus I am new, i joined just yesterday! WIKI_BOI1015 WIKI BOI1015 (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKI BOI1015 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(The below cut and pasted form user's talk page)

Thanks for reaching out to me on my talk page. I reread your edit and the phrasing of "fails" in your intermediate edits confused me - I thought it was something else (i.e. "fails" as in mocking). Regardless of my confusion, you are absolutely right in that it was not vandalism. My apologies for my mistake.

I was going to restore your edit, but the phrasing of "Northerners also disliked this, creating more fails to pass legislation" seems very strange, particularly "fails." It's unclear to me if the Northerners there disliked the railroads wanting to establish operations, the legislation that failed, or the way that the legislation failed. I'm wracking my brain trying to rephrase this, but I'm not coming up with anything.

If you wish to redo your edit or rephrase your change, I will assume good faith and not stop you. Also, if you want to run by any ideas on how the change should read, I'm more than willing to work with you on it.

In any case, my apologies again for my mistake. I hope it has not discouraged you form editing. You were very polite in the way you raised the issue with me and I appreciate it. Thanks for that and thanks for taking the time to contribute your ideas to Wikipedia!

KNHaw, my apologies for thinking you were a person trying to get me banned. Thank you for this kind letter to me, I hope you have a good rest of your day! :) Oh also how do I friend you?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKI BOI1015 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

--KNHaw ^(talk) 00:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In case you have had a bad day, here is a kitten to make you smile!

lunchtimedude (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to thank you for your edit and instead undid you. Meters (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Meters, not a problem at all! I saw your correction. Have a great one! --KNHaw ^(talk) 22:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello You guys need to stop linking us to these policies in your templates because often times users will just to the TL-DR thing. also they are too American. Maybe instead of linking us ot the long long page, point out where you want us to look so we don't do TL-DR. thaks Ahab 199.101.61.34 (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Also you assume that I can see to read the stupid captcha thingy that I have to enter when I try to cite things. screen-reading software is not able to recognize your old old captchas that do not have an audio option, so you just shut out a whole community of people. and I'm not making an account because I have enough passwords to remember, and I'm not taking another hacked account like back in 2010 when my Pokemon wiki account got hacked by somebody. so from now on no in-line citation until wikipedia adds an audio option to the captcha. untill then too bad for you guys i guess? 199.101.61.34 (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Provide a source or don't redo your edit. Claims like yours need sources. If you have a a problem with that, then I'm afraid it's a nonstarter. --KNHaw ^(talk) 21:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You didn't address the assumtion you guys make about users, you assume i can see and that I can read the captchas You don't get to block me unless you do something to deal with the captcha thing. seriously, wiki needs to have an audio option for captchas or else you will see other non-sighted users like myself being blocked for stupid reasons that they can't help. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You So until this gets addressed, where wikipedia adds an audio option to the captchas, thus keeping Wikipedia safe and allowing blind users like myself to do inline citations, you have 0 right to block me due to lack of sources, because I have them, I wish to cite them, but can't. and creating an account is way yout of the question due to my problem with passwords, so the best option is to either do away with the old captcha system your website still uses, or else reprogram it to not be tirggered for every citation, or better yet and safer yet, add an audio captcha option. it's 2019, not 2009. This is why we don't like you wiki bureaucrats, y'all always tell us what to do and do nothing to help us do it, then y'all punish us for not doing as you ask. what the heck friends? 199.101.61.34 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If you have a concern with Captchas, I suggest you raise the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump. That is a forum dedicated Wikipedia policies, proposals, and technical issues. Please do not raise them on my talk page - I have no power over any such thing. Also, please do not post any more to my talk page. It is obvious that I can not help you with your issues and would rather not waste your time or mine. Good luck. --KNHaw ^(talk) 04:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kevin sorry for vandalising the wikipedia pages. I was trying to be funny. Obviously that did not happen. Therefore, can i just make wikipedia pages based on my stories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costaki10 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Below was added to user's talk page - please see there for further interation)

@Costaki10: Thanks for reaching out to me. I do some writing on the side myself so I understand the urge to scribble. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't really the place for that. It's intended as a resource for people who rely on it for accuracy. I would suggest getting a free site on Wordpress for that. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before you get blocked by an admin here.

If you just want to play around on Wikipedia, you can also use the sandbox - just click on wp:sandbox and it will give you a safe area to edit without issue. There will also be useful links in the Welcome template I will add to your talk page shortly.

Please feel free to ask me any questions. Good luck! --KNHaw ^(talk) 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please my friend, look at the capitalization of the 1992 Los Angeles riots article and you will see the spelling in the title uses a lower case r not a capital R. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.116.133 (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Two admins agree: you were not correct in reporting this account to WP:AIV. Please be more careful. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Materialscientist, were the reverts rollback abuse? They were unexplained, and what they reverted was not vandalism. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Drmies You are 100% correct. I was not paying attention to the actual Instagram handles they were posting but had assumed (absolutely incorrectly) they were posting SPAM in rapid succession. Even though that is a common behavioral pattern in a SPAM account, I have no excuse for not double checking and for not assuming good faith. I have posted an apology to the user and said I hope my errors will not deter them from editing in the future. I will restoring their edits shortly and then will take a bit of a breather from editing. If you feel further action is required, I understand entirely.

Thank you for catching my error and I apologize that it was necessary that you do so.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 19:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you KNHaw. I appreciate all the things that you did and that things that you've done for the project. No need to restore the edits: they most likely go against WP:EL, though as you know tythat doesn't make em vandal edits. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this. I appreciate it. --KNHaw ^(talk) 21:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to WP and having technical difficulties. The information I added was from another WP article.. Still, no good reason for you to undo my changes so quickly. Can you wait for a while until I figure this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.186.225.47 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I.e. On the '30s Starlet article. Did you just freak out over the bizarre-URL artifact??JerzyA (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Didn't freak out - just fixed an error in the URL. "httpsp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40545491" is not a valid URL. --KNHaw ^(talk) 06:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

ok, I'll have to dissect.... hm, I had just saved a talk edit, and no doubt the bad URL was I a separate already fergotn edit. Thanks!
JerzyA (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. It's good to have our work double checked. Please review the change at your convenience and let me know if I did something wrong. Happy editing! --KNHaw ^(talk) 06:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit, won't happen again. Cheers, Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackinator1500 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit brother, wont happen again.

Jackinator1500 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. I knew the sandbox existed but I read the article wrong. It said 13 provinces and territory's put I only saw provinces.

Thx.

Thepersonwhowritesanything/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepersonwhowritesanything (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

	The Barnstar Barnstar
	For being unbelievably kind and generous with your awarding of barnstars. I hereby grant you the coveted Barnstar Barnstar! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

We heard you like Barnstars... WanderingWanda (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! You're too kind! --KNHaw ^(talk) 16:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I had assumed that if I was logged in with a valid account then an IP block will not affect me - what gives? --KNHaw ^(talk) 15:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! It works now! --KNHaw ^(talk) 19:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

On Dolores O'Riordan article there is some user's private information in the edit history that wasn't removed yet.

--Rodlois (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rodlois: Thank you for reaching out to me. Are you referring to the now deleted account "My p&ssword is XXXXXXXXXX" in the edit history? Or something else?

--KNHaw ^(talk) 03:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is what it is.

--Rodlois (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a little unclear, though, if that is truly personal information, as it is from an account that no longer exists. If it's someone else's information, it's also unclear whom that might be referencing given that the original account is gone. However, given that the account is now not merely blocked but has been completely removed, it implies one of the administrators agrees with your assessment.

I am not an administrator and can not scrub that history myself.

Honestly, I think you might be a better advocate for requesting the history be scrubbed than me. If that interests you, the way to do it (or to have any history scrubbed) is to go to [1] - use your account name as my Nickname when you log in there. That's the best way to reach an administrator online who can help you (you can also find an administrator on the CAT:RFRD page, but there's no guarantee that they're active and will address your concern any time soon). Once there, request via the chat that the specific revision history entries be wiped out. In doing so, mention that you think this falls under the "Personal information" clause in the Wikipedia:Revision deletion policy.

Again, I think you're the best person to do this. If you have questions let me know.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 03:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

(Reverted to revision 923953770 by KNHaw) I did not get what "Last version" is. Did you mean it cannot be improved? Honestly I did not get why you reverted. So I reverted yours trying reasonable. Looking for explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotohelp (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out to me. However, I did not revert your edit. It was @Auric: who reverted your edits to a version that happened to be mine. That editor will be the one who can answer you questions. At a minimum, though, your edit deleted the entire bottom portion of the article (references, "see also" section, categories, etc). As for any other changes and their reasoning, I suggest you ask that editor.

Thanks --KNHaw ^(talk) 19:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow the trail in these 5 edits. I think you meant to revert the _first_ v edit. Instead you reverted the _second_ edit of the pair of jokers. Fortunately they regreted their japery and article is correct again. Shenme (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Shenme: Thank you so much for catching that! You are 100% correct about my error. Thank you for reaching out to me to let me know. --KNHaw ^(talk) 18:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If you obtain a copy of the sheet music "Jolly Corks" by Lee Grabbe, playing the first page will reveal it is the melody of "Old Lang Syne".75.16.185.164 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out to me. Can you obtain either an online/scanned version of that sheet music or the publication information? If so, you could use the instructions at Wikipedia:Citing sources to cote the source and restore your earlier edit. I would be willing to help you out with that if you get that data. Please let me know when you have it and we can proceed.

Thanks! --KNHaw ^(talk) 05:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The source is clearly stated. It's Grabbe's composition "Jolly Corks". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.185.164 (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)