User talk:KnowledgeChuck

Archives

2018

Oklahoma State....

Every FBS team has a page or will have a page. Completely useless for this nomination without nominating every FBS page which is insane. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsuorangecrush: I understand what you're saying, but could you provide me another FBS team with the same standards who has a page. I also want you to know the only reason why I nominated it was; because it was declined in AfC last week. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the same standards? Not entirely certain what you mean by that so I'll just say all of them pretty much. I'm not going to list 130 different pages. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsuorangecrush:

Done - I have removed the speedy delete notice. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New editor

Are you new to wikipedia or do you have another account? Natureium (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: Hello, I have read Wikipedia for months if not years, however as an editor I'm new. I've read Speedy Delete criteria over and over again as well as spending some time reading in the Teahouse as well as Help Desk. I hope to contribute in many ways to Wikipedia. My focus will be in new pages and vandalism. --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to have you as a contributor. As a tip, it may be better to wait a few minutes after an article is created before adding tags. Editors are often still adding information at that point. I usually wait around 30 minutes. Natureium (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: I noticed that

, thanks for the tip - And also thank you for the welcome, I hope to contribute greatly, knowledge is something I admire, and duing my free time I hope to patrol and contribute to Wikipedia. --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harumi (album)

Hi, this page is barren now, but I have a lot more content which I will be adding later tonight.Mcinerneym381 (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcinerneym381: I have now drafted this, when you are ready to publish this on Wikipedia, then messege me in my talk page, thanks. --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KnowledgeChuck: Thank you! Is it still flagged for deletion? Mcinerneym381 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcinerneym381: I have unflagged it for deletion as it is now maintained as a draft, you may edit how much you want, and when you're ready to publish it to mainspace; then message me on my talk page and I can move it into the mainspace(where it will be a real article and not a draft) You may edit the article now via this link Draft:Harumi (album). --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Please see WP:ROLLBACK - you have only been editing for 3 days, please continue your good work and it will happen, no rush! Giant Snowman 11:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Hello, I hope you're fine. - I understand, I will await with rollback. - I am thinking of joining the Football Wikiproject and creating articles relating to football, would you as an admin put me as autopatrolled or/and new page reviewer? I will start creating stubs on football players right away then.

- KnowledgeChuck (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please seek them at WP:RIGHTS. Giant Snowman 10:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC question

Similar to the recent question regarding Wiki841 by Kudpung; I would like to express my appreciation to KnowledgeChuck for his enthusiasm in moving a number of drafts to mainspace (e.g. [6], etc.), as well as declining a variety of AfC submissions (e.g. Draft:Sidsel Kjøller Damkjær, etc.) but - since he has only 123 lifetime edits - I wonder if we might be unfairly occupying his time doing AfC reviews at this early stage in his editing tenure? Since he's planning on "going 24/7 on new page patrols" [7] it might be unreasonable to encumber him with AfC reviewing right now as well. Chetsford (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)1

@Chetsford: Hello, I noticed you tagged me in a talk page, if you have any questions to me of any kind, please feel free to ask me here on my talk page

. --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: That was super diplomatic. Chuck, the fact is that, as a new editor with little experience, you really shouldn't be involving yourself in either AFC work or in new page patrol. These are areas best left to more experienced editors. Get more experience with actual content creation / cleanup. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I've stricken the above comment as it was not a comment left or signed by me on this page, but was copied here without reference - and my signature was then applied to it- by KnowledgeChuck [1]. The original comment, which I left here [2], I subsequently hatted as the central question it raised has had a change of venue. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: I have linked the statement, don't worry. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KC: typically, we don't edit each other's comments as per WP:TPO which you've now down with that edit [3]. Anyway, don't sweat it - I suspect none of this will matter soon. Chetsford (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: Did you see my !vote? I changed my vote from !keep and nominated it for deletion in regards to it being creating by a blocked user. - Understand that the author in question of the subject has manipulatively changed the subjects name several times, this resulted with the salt being avoid. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lothar Leiendecker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lothar Leiendecker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lothar Leiendecker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of BLP prod

I'm surprised that you seem to think that somebody who was around during the War of the Three Kingdoms might still be alive. PatGallacher (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PatGallacher: - Typo error viewing on my side

, I will remove the notice. - You still have to add sources as the article has no sources whatsoever.

Done - The notice is now removed KnowledgeChuck (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeChuck Please stop inappropriately adding BLPPROD to places where they do not belong. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: - I have tons of pages open when patrolling, must have been a missview when entering via Twinkle, I mean to put a BLPPROD on another page. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then be more careful, this is just one of many errors today. You are very new, so take it slow. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to patrol new pages, you really need to slow down. this article was only created 10 minutes before you tagged it - it's reasonable to think that someone is still actively editing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to The Dubai Mall— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serols: Why did you revert my edits? I reverted 94.205.160.45's vandalism edit. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KnowledgeChuck, see here and here. I wanted to do the same, but I was too late. I deleted the file, because this is the counter for Huggle. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This is absurd, I put my time into this project and you block me for no reason. - I will not spend my time editing and helping when I get treated with this kind of manners by User:Bbb23. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but with the additional issues and concerns that Bbb23 pointed me to when discussing this block with him below, I agree that there are unresolved concerns to where I cannot accept your request. I initially believed that this was just a situation of over-eagerness (I ran into this block update through a tool), and this was why I initially wanted to just talk and unblock. However, even though I'm not required to have his approval to unblock you, Bbb23 and I know one another well enough and I trust his judgment when he says "no". Oshwah

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.

Bbb23 - If KnowledgeChuck will allow me, I'd like to just talk to the user about this block and help him to understand the reasoning... if he's willing and he says that he understands and agrees to follow my input and advice, would you be against me unblocking this user and granting their request? This seems to me that the best way to resolve the entire issue is to just explain, make sure he understands, and move on... easy peasy. Let me know when you can. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: (edit conflict) Where does the user say he "understands and agrees to follow my input and advice"? Surely his unblock request doesn't reflect any understanding of anything. I see the user as a disruptive new account who, bizarrely, keeps asking for special permissions at various places. I see the user as at best misleading in their representations and I don't believe their denial of other accounts on my Talk page. At this juncture, I would not agree to an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 - And, oh... it sounds like I've missed some important dialogue you say? Talk page? Denial of sock puppetry? Looks like I'll be withdrawing this request after I read though this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this disappointing - Again I appreciate Oshawa and I would also like to see that route of ending, but again, I am therely dissapointed on Bbb23 and his opinions. I am yet to understand my block. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah:, {{ping|Bbb23]] Do you guys seriously think I have another account? I am so lost right now, first I get blocked and now accused of this. What is going on? --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is something you'll want to discuss further with Bbb23, as he has more in-depth involvement with this situation than I do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Please can you explain what is the reason for my block, surley you don't have to block me for a full 48 hours, I don't even know why I am blocked, and if I have done an editing wrong-use, then I do apologize, but I don't recall of any wrongdoing. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my elaboration of your disruption ("repeatedly asking for special permissions despite inexperience and declines. Also forum shopping at various administrator Talk pages") in your block log. See also this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Oh, please understand I was unaware that this was not allowed, I just wanted to ask for a right or someone to take a look. - Please, dose this have to lead to a full 48hr block? I asure you that I will not do such again, but you could have just told me that this was not allowed, and I would have stopped. - Do you have to block me? --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had notice of your disruptive activity on my Talk page. You just didn't want to listen because it interfered with your agenda. The permissions pages tell you what the minimums are for obtaining those rights. All you have to do is read them, but not only do you ignore them, rather than wait for a response, you hop off to Talk pages of admins (I have no idea how you pick them, either) to push for an earlier response. Apologies are hollow if it appears you have no insight into your misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I do now fully understand, thus apologize. - But please do understand I am here soley to do good, will you look past this thus leting me countinue edit now. I hope so. I am only here to do good. --KnowledgeChuck (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: - May you unblock me please?

KnowledgeChuck (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your own words, please explain to me what you "fully understand".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: - I understand that - 1. I requested permission for a right, without reading the req. for it, I 2. several times went to 2 or 3 different admins and asked for a right to be given to me as I was not patient and did not wait for an answer on the requesting page. - This I apologize for, but think and hope it should not be an epilog of a block, rather a notice and caution warning. - Opinion aside, I am again sorry for any disruptiveness, and I humbly ask for an unblock. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: - May you unblock me now please? KnowledgeChuck (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give you some advice/warnings for the future. First, don't ask for any special permissions for quite some time. You're too new. Also, it looks like you're trying to acquire merit badges to make you appear more experienced than you are. Second, listen to more experienced editors when they talk to you. They are usually trying to help you, and they know a lot more about Wikipedia policies and guidelines than you do. Third, slow down. You're trying to move to quickly for a new user. Study and learn more and edit less. If you're at all uncertain whether what you want to do is appropriate, ask someone first. Finally, I and possibly others will be monitoring your activity, at least for the time being, to ensure that you keep your promises and that you heed my warnings. If you don't, you risk being blocked - and the next block would be much longer up to indefinite. This is not intended to be "mean", just making sure there's no misunderstanding later. Based on your and my comments, I will unblock you. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am making an additional condition to your unblock: Please do not patrol or tag pages for maintenance. Thanks. FYI Bbb23. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Just to let you know I've indeffed this account as a sock, which is what I originally thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:KnowledgeChuck/twinkleoptions.js

User:KnowledgeChuck/twinkleoptions.js, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KnowledgeChuck/twinkleoptions.js and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:KnowledgeChuck/twinkleoptions.js during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:KnowledgeChuck/common.js

User:KnowledgeChuck/common.js, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KnowledgeChuck/common.js and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:KnowledgeChuck/common.js during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]