User talk:KahnJohn27/Archive 1

2636:

years ago. The issue was raised several times so multiple sections of the talk page were dedicated to it. But I can give you the jist of what was decided. Due to the Facebook posts being official posts made by SOHR (which is being quoted repeatedly by foreign reliable news media outlets), and not posts made by individuals who can not be verified as reliable sources, it was considered to be, to a degree, a reliable source. However, due to it again being Facebook, which Knowledge does not really condone, it was decided to use the SOHR Facebook announcements in the least amount possible. Plus, some editors had a problem with SOHR being a pro-opposition activist group, thus non-neutral, although at times it also criticised the rebels and not just the government. So the primary focus for which the posts would be used was reports of deaths, namely reports of daily death tolls or reports of overall deaths. And that's it. As for all other reports made by SOHR Facebook, they would be excluded unless a non-Facebook reliable source was to be provided which quotes SOHR directly or some such. Confirmation of the agreement to use SOHR Facebook as a death toll source in this way you can find with editors like Sopher99 or Lothar von Richthofen. Also, to my knowledge, except one or two persons, people generally haven't mind to quote SOHR Facebook when a report of a change in territory is made between the warring sides, although we mostly look to replace these with non-Facebook reliable sources as soon as possible.

3169:

misunderstanding the statements of the victims. I simply don't need a consensus because my edits were perfectly following the policies of Knowledge. A consensus is like saying that I might be wrong which I aint. But I will not reinsert the article and get involved in edit warring but I will make them realize that they have been misunderstanding the facts. I know admins like you won't even care to consider your actions that they might be wrong, because basically no one questions you. You will block people without a hitch either because you simply think you're correct which is not neccesarry always. It's your daily job. I don't think you people have any feelings for others. If you did then you would try to understand the truth. You know that most of the people try to impose their own views on Knowledge but you take no steps to stop this and act like everyone is working towards making Knowledge better. This is not an insult but the truth that you admins are monsters. You don't have any feelings for the other users.

2670:

did not blame you for anything. I'm sorry if you felt that way and misunderstood me. In fact, I said that as far as SOHR Facebook as a source for territorial changes me and others look to replace those as soon as possible with non-Facebook sources, the main reason being your own, that we (including me) are of the opinion that Facebook shouldn't be used as a source, unless its about death tolls. As for telling me that I am the same as that guy, no I am not. That guy is for one side in the conflict and has tried to introduce his own sides claims as references while removing others. While me, I am of the opinion that both government AND opposition sources should be removed unless directly quoted by reliable sources for the sake of neutrality and article balance as Knowledge policy dictates. And due to my position of neutrality (not supporting ether side) I have been criticized by both pro-opposition and pro-government editors, being called a regime-lover and a rebel rat.

1638:

me any more, its about other users as well. In the meantime I added a comment to her talk page as part of your discussion there, and she now has removed the whole discussion! See how she compared me to an "insect" in her edit summary (see the revision history)! Ha ha! What stupendous arrogance! It seems she's incapable of taking any constructive criticism, let alone actually responding to it in a civilized and humane manner! As a senior editor she has a responsibility (like all editors) to be more gracious with newer editors such as ourselves , and not be so dismissive, since it is well accepted that newer editors can add just as much value (sometimes more, with a fresh perspective) as established editors do. Newer editors should be encouraged, not dismissed. Although an account was set up for me 3 years ago, I've only started editing in the last few months, learning about policy as I go along, but not unsympathetic to those also are still learning. --

1595:

trying to make (at that point I didn't realize "he" was a "she" - I also had never heard the name "Marnette" before, hence the confusion). The discussion ended by another user actually providing some constructive input in the form of references, which is what MarnetteD should have done from the beginning. I think user MarnetteD is impatient, inconsiderate and ill-mannered and needs some diplomacy skills. Up until now I was considering my run-in with her a personal matter that I had to deal with myself, in my own way, under the restrictive umbrella of Knowledge, but now I see she treats others the same way. I see also she removes comments on her talk page that happen to disagree with her point of view (check the revision history of her discussion with you)! Its no longer a personal matter, its a civil matter, which should be of interest to Knowledge as a whole. You have my support at least. --

1168:<---this was not me). Just to be more specific, I did not change your sources or change your data. What I did was remove a personal interpretation of that data ("which makes it successful"), because that is exactly that...a personal interpretation of the data. There was no secondary source discussing the financial success of the film, especially given that we have no idea how much it cost to market the film. With a budget of 20 million dollars, marketing come easily be just as much, if not more. Given that the standard rule of thumb (not an exact science mind you) is 3 times the budget equals a success, I would say the film has not met that. Either way, my opinion doesn't matter as it's an interpretation and that is why I removed that little snippet that was there. So....I'll let you read your comment to me again and see if it still applies, given that it was rather aggressive and rude. 1016:

IT. I am not obligated to go searching through a website to source something YOU want to add. BOM is, and has always been, an acceptable source for box office figures. The fact that it is owned by IMDb does not make it unreliable. The difference between BOM and IMDb is that the latter contains user submitted information, and the former does not when it comes to box office figures. That said, it still comes down to the fact that you have not provide an actual source. You just say "look and calculate". How about, ADD A SOURCE. If the source is fine, then the information is fine. But you cannot change information and not provide an updated source, with the explanation of "go look and calculate". Knowledge doesn't work that way.

1060:. Don't speak to me about "overturning my talk" or whatever you were trying to say. What I have contended from the start is that you have to have a reliable source to add information, and you need to ADD that source to the page. I don't care if there are 2 sources or 20 sources on the page that back up a fact...they just need to be present. That is what I have said from the start. Read my very first sentence: "I reverted you because you provided NO source for your figures." It's pretty simple what I was saying, and even more simple what you need to do if you want to add the information. It is not my responsibility to find the source and add it for you. 1549:

called into question, MarnetteD often becomes quite aggressive, deletes any contributions that are not in line with her personal opinion and often tries to get others involved to support her. She made reference to my personal address in our last exchange in an effort to intimidate. These bullying tactics are not what Knowledge is about. You are correct in pointing out that MarnetteD is, in fact, the disruptive editor and I am currently looking into having her temporarily suspended so she can reflect on her nuisance behaviour and bring a more mature approach to her editing when allowed to return.

1779:, we cannot extrapolate. Even in basic cases such as this, where all you're doing is adding box office totals, the reliable source will always trump one editor's calculations, simply for the reason that they are widely-recognized as reputable, have links to the inner circles of Hollywood, and do this for a living. We are merely volunteers with calculators. I know this isn't what you want to hear, but given that multiple editors have already raised concerns with how far you're taking this issue, it may be best to back off of it and focus on other areas for now. 1056:

said that BOM is considered reliable. The fact that BOM doesn't have foreign information and box office.com or the-numbers.com do is neither here nor there with regard to BOM. If you have a source for foreign information then ADD IT. It doesn't get anymore simpler than that. I've only reverted you because you are not providing any source whatsoever. You're claiming to have seen a figure and calculated the foreign gross, but you have never once actually provided the source that shows the figure. Please take a moment to read

2008:

character flaw that neither she nor her "wiki" friends seem to acknowledge. I said an apology from her to me would go a long way, especially if it was genuine and not condescending, and I would certainly forgive her iniquities and believe that she had some redeeming qualities. However I don't expect that to happen, and won't get too worked up over it. Such is life, or more to the point, such is Knowledge. Having said that, I do have some reservations about this "community", but we'll keep that discussion for another time.

1566:

induldged in combative behavior I cannot then just sit and watch. Apart from that I can't say about her trying to enforce her opinion since I've talked only a few times to her. She should be reported and it will be up to the admins and they will decide if she should be punished and what punishment to be given to her. She should be held accountable for her actions. However I think that the admins should first warn her. I can also complain about this user myself if you are unable to. Also please note that there is a

1110:

that it has said "boxoffice.com" the entire time. When I went to the source listed next to the figure (instead of the external link at the bottom of the page, that I thought was also the sournce next to the figure), I saw the 38 million figure. So, again, I apologize. It was my oversight for not clearly looking at the source's url when this all started. I was only arguing this because I thought that there was a different source on the page, and that source didn't say that figure.

2651:

outlet. During the Libyan civil war I reverted and removed edits based on opposition or government sources on sight. However, during the past two years I have found SOHR, though officially an opposition news source, to be, for the most part, neutral (they report on rebel war crimes as much as government ones) and reliable (90 percent of their claims being confirmed as true and being reported by the reliable news sources like Reuters, AFP, etc). So I have come to accept it.

836:. But that procedure is useless for a dynamic IP and I'm not sold on using the warnings at the first chance in cases of blatant vandalism because somehow is like "feeding the troll", so what I would do before use warnings is revert, as you already did, browse vandal's contributions list to see if he made another vandalic editions, and then add the vandalized page(s) to my watchlist for a few months. If the vandal insists, then you can use the warnings and then report him 3931: 2402: 1390: 400: 4720: 31: 4680: 3573: 3382: 252: 172: 3613:. I want to uuse this on the article about the actress but the uploader of this pic says the picture is not taken by him potentially meaning that the uploader might have himself committed copyright violations. However this pic is free to use commercially, adapt modify and build upon but there's no telling whether the original pic might have been free to use commercially or not. Should I upload it or not? Thank you. 3310:

possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Knowledge rests with the person who adds or restores material.

4539: 4472: 1242:, then I didn't seek consensus because I didn't think it would be controversial. My intention was not to remove reliable figures but to essentially to cut down the number of lists to be maintained to 1 rather than 2 (per platform). If the list I replaced the existing data with is/was out of date, that is problem regardless of whether the data is also shown on the multi-platform list; the solution is to update 926: 1619:

care of this matter if you report to them. In case you do I will vouch for your claim. I forgave her because I know sometimes my behavior is rash. But now I know that my behavior was not responsible for her bashing me with accusations multiple times. It is the fault of her own behavior and she has displayed this conflicting behavior. I suggest you take strict action and report about her behavior at

994:) that verifies your information. You need to actually provide the source in the article and it needs to be a reliable source. I don't know "boxoffice.com", so I don't know if that's a reliable source or not. When I see the link to the page I'll check the reliability of the source. Until then, the figure remains "inaccurate", as you put it, because the source listed does not contain those figures. 4586: 3985: 3832: 2111:; that being said, it might be beneficial to be a bit less blunt. I'm not saying you should lie, but outright telling people you don't trust them doesn't do much other than offend them and/or make them defensive. It's best to leave things like that unsaid. I do appreciate that you're attempting to make the best of the situation, though. Just try to keep that in mind for next time. Regards, 4369: 3673: 224:). Making a typo is no great disaster, it's easy enough to edit the page again and correct it. You can also use the Show Preview button at the bottom of the edit window to see how your changes will look before saving them, which should show up any spelling errors. If you're interested in helping fix the spelling errors within Knowledge, you might want to think about joining the 1354: 4436: 3752: 1672:. Well said. You may have noticed I added my 2 cents worth to the discussion. It looks like it fell on deaf ears as the subsequent comments have completely ignored mine! I think this needs 3rd-party intervention i.e. from an admin with no previous involvement, as they are obviously only going to support each other ad infinitum. Have you taken your discussion to the 3100:. It's you actually who should stop getting involved in edit warring and stop trying to impose your own views. The family does not have any problem with the name. And anyway in these type of issues there should be lot of editors involved for a proper conesensus rather than only 2 editors which your consensus had and opinions of uninvolved editors must be taken. 4084: 3500: 2962: 2498: 2424: 2321: 2235: 426: 3265:"the media to leave them alone". I've been saying that from the beginning. I didn't gave any proof for this because in Martin451's source of this privacy the statement's meaning is clear. Media usually follows the victims in these type of cases for interviews etc. That's why they asked for "privacy" to leave them alone. I have read 3478:

had held a discussion with them about another subject much time ago and they completely hijacked the discussion. However in the end they realized I was right. If you want I can provide you the links to those discussions. So you see there's no point in peaceful discussion with them. I hope you understand my views. Thabk you.

1037:

has a foreign sectipn so I could easily overturn your talk against you and revert your edit by listing multiple sources. 2 is better than 1. Also if you still don't agree then I advise you to take this matter to the reliable sources noticeboard where a consensus might be reached by us and other users. Thank you.

3628:

If the uploader did not take the picture, it is highly unlikely that he owns the copyright. If this is the case, he is not in a position to licence it for reuse, and so we must assume that the cc-by-sa tag is invalid. In other words, don't upload it; at least not without communicating with the Flickr

3477:

Hello Johnuniq believe me the reason why I didn't start a discussion because I know what kind of people they are. They're just going to hijack the discussion and blame me as a view imposer and what not. Actually many users have blamed them for imposing their views and being unnecessarily agressive. I

3168:

I suggest you first review your and Martin451's actions. You probably just saw the complaint at ANI and gave me a warning. You didn't even care to properly read the talk page of the article and understand the situation. If there's anyone who should be blocked then it is Martin451 and you. He has been

1637:

I was reluctant to do that before because I just wanted to take it on the chin and chalk it up to experience, and frankly I didn't think the "abuse" was serious enough to report. I may have been wrong, now that I see its happening elsewhere. I think I will do as you suggest because its not just about

1109:

I actually owe you an apology. I've been arguing with you this entire time because I misread the source's url. Everytime you changed the figure I kept going back to BOM.com to check (which didn't have that figure), because I thought that the source next to it said "boxofficemojo.com". I just realized

855:

Well it just can't be left there openly fro anyone to do anything they want on that page. And I'm sorry I actually thought you were an administrator. I just took a quick decision because I thought if somebody can vandalise such an important list in such a way why won't they try it again. Still thanks

4615:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

2650:

A hardcore anti-opposition editor who doesn't condone the use of SOHR in any form, or a user, like you, who objectes to the use of Facebook sources. Personally, I can tell you, that I myself am highly against using opposition or government reports as a source unless it is relayed by a reliable media

1774:

Erik stated it's acceptable, but every other voice so far has weighed in in BOM's favour. I think there's a key misunderstanding here; while you may fact-check sources as you like, community consensus (so far) indicates that BOM is preferred to BoxOffice.com. We are not in the position to denounce a

1419:

KahnJohn27, This is BattleshipMan. May I remind you that some box-office sites are never accurate or reliable, including Boxoffice.com & Box Office Mojo and there is no consensus to select a particular box-office site for reference on those production costs and box-office numbers. Unless you can

1036:

Brother you say that I can't decide which site is unreliable. But you're basically contradicting your own statement here. If you want to know it's reliable pe not here's the proof thenumbers.com backs up boxoffice.com figures. Now I don't think both of these sites will be wrong. Also the numbers.com

3318:

These are all subject to consensus as to where the lines are with a particular incident. So far, the consensus is 12-1 that you are doing it wrong, between this page, the article talk page, and ANI. Edit warring to reinsert BLP sensitive material - even while a consensus is forming - is blockable

3269:

before this many times and when this issue started I started reading it more frequently. However unlike what you say it rather appears to me that it provides us more liberties. I'll like to ask you bruder is what you mean to say is that even if there is no objection (meaning they don't say anything

3196:

There's no door closed here. All you have to do is show your work, show the family statements, get a new consensus. You are not allowed to just assert you are right and do whatever you want in the face of objections. Knowledge isn't the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It's the encyclopedia we all

2635:

Not sure if I can provide you with the specific link to that discussion because it was actually multiple discussions, and not just one, made mostly on the talk pages of the Syrian civil war article and on the talk pages of the Battle of Aleppo article. Made on multiple occasions starting almost two

2046:

I wanted to say hello and to let you know that if needed, I can weigh in on a discussion about box office figures for a specific film article. I think it is fair to say that both Box Office Mojo and BoxOffice.com are reliable sources (though the latter may not be as proven in practice). It may be a

1618:

In that case I recommend you immediately report about this user's uncivil and impolite behavior to the administrator noticeboard then. Nobody should dismiss anybody's comments as "wall-text". This is a gross disrespect of other users. If this user is guilty of what you say then the admins will take

1570:

who has personally attacked me by passing insults and name-calling me and I'm going to report him too. He dismissed my comments as rants by a high school student. Of course I'm a high school student but it can easily be seen what he is implying by this statement. He means to say that teenagers rant

1265:

If you "proof" is the company's own about page that you linked, then that proves nothing about the reliability of their figures. If there is a consensus on their use being reliable, I'd like to see it (Knowledge doesn't work on "proof" as such). I will leave their figures in (at least for now) as I

1055:

Are you serious? I didn't say YOU couldn't decide anything. Matter of fact, I didn't say anything about you other than you clearly do not understand what I'm saying. I did NOT claim that boxoffice.com was NOT reliable. I said that I don't know about it's reliability, because I've not heard of it. I

949:

Some websites like stock.xchng, shutterstock etc provide royalty-free photos. They can be used for editorial purposed but not for commercial purposes. I'll like to know if I can use photos of celebrities from these sites for the article of the specific celebrity that I have downloaded the image of.

870:

You are welcome. And don't get worried or disappointed: it's just that, as Knowledge is completely open project, there are civic-minded and antisocial people, right like in the real world. I know it's frustrating to find destructive behaviors but, you know, as British say, "keep calm and carry on".

537:

since the game does not have any article. But before doing that I'll like to discuss it with other people. I had edited the Elder Scrolls template by Linking Hearthfire to the Skyrim article since it did not have any article of it's own. The reason for this was that the DLC is not an expansion like

2669:

were. When I said there were a few persons who were objecting to the use of SOHR I ment someone who is anti-opposition, like the anonymous user, or a few people who have from time to time objected to the use of SOHR Facebook sources in the way you did, I did not mean you specificaly. That's all, I

1435:

Look, I understand your reasons and it's looks it's with your good intentions. But there is conflicting reports of production budgets in various movies and box-office numbers on those sites on various movies. We don't know which site is accurate and reliable at this point. I brought this matter to

1015:

Apparently, you're not getting wha I'm saying so I'll spell it out for you a bit more. The onus is not on me to go seek out a source for the information. It's on the person adding it. On the TCM page, there is no foreign figures listed. If there is another page that lists foreign figures, THEN ADD

751:

P.S. Never mind. It doesn't seem like you've very active here, so I've fixed it for you. I've also discovered what you did wrong. You mixed up reference tags. If you want to add your own statement, provide the statement and add your reference. Leave others alone, so you don't confuse yourself. You

3309:

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Knowledge's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the

3264:

I already said that you don't have any proof that the family have restricted the media from naming her. I did not provide any sources because the sources Martin451 have provided do not mention at all about their disapproval about the name grosser bruder.When they asked for privacy they asked for

2914:

This just isn't getting through to you, is it? Your approach to this matter is deeply flawed, and you are going to have to man up, admit that you erred, move on and try and learn from it: if you don't then you're going to have a rough editing experience every time you try and force your preferred

2853:

Probably but I and Betty Logan haven't reverted so much that it might be called an edit warring. Besides it was Betty Logan who actually reverted when the RfC started. You can see the history of the article and determine that easily. So I think if I have to be warned then it is first and foremost

2684:

P.S. As for the opinion of that anonymous user about me, I wouldn't care less what he thinks of me, as long as I enforce Knowledge's policy of neutrality and balance. And that is not allowing unverified claims made by both government and rebel sources being presented as fact. If it is stated in a

1790:

I'm sorry m.o.p. but I cant back off from this issue. I hope you understand it's not because of my pride or it is correct according to me. It's no more just about Boxoffice.com or BOM but also bringing about positive change to Knowledge and if I alone have to do it I'll still do it.There are many

1594:

for a REAL wall of text and see how User Acroterion has shown considerable patience and fairness beyond what I would consider the "call of duty"). Having never heard the expression "wall-of-text" before the discussion with MarnetteD, I was deeply offended, as it completely missed the points I was

1548:

is completely incapable of listening to reason. These exchanges cause her great personal upset and she has no interest in improving Knowledge's articles. It is disappointing there are users like this who vandalise Knowledge but that's the unfortunate reality of allowing anyone to contribute. When

831:

Hello, KahnJohn27. First of all I have to say that as I'm not an administrator I cannot take any measure like semi-locking a page since I haven't the needed privileges. By the way, administrators are usually rather reluctant to semi-lock too quickly. That said, apparently the protocol in in these

4231:

for sales figures for example). As you can see, a site doesn't need to have an article on Knowledge to be considered reliable. It could come in handy for you to you know, especially if you're creating an article for a game that hasn't seen much main stream media coverage. You don't want to spend

3226:

I actually said they didn't object. Whenever I said permission that's what I actually meant. They didn't say media can't use her name. Where are your sources? Where it is said that they don't want her name to be made public? The sources only say they don't want her name in "public records". Read

2872:

that alteration took place, and it was your third amendment to the same piece of information. You were two reverts too far before you bothered to make any comments on the talk page in the RfC that BettyLogan started. Why should she be warned for correctly starting an RfC after reverting you only

1565:

I have witnessed the rude and combative behavior of this user myself. I was willing to let this matter go earlier as I don't hold anything against anyone. Also she has grossly misrepresented my statements which you can see on her talk page but I was also willing to let that go. But since she has

1484:

That barnstar you kept going on about was on March 19. It's got nothing to do with now. You talking barnstars? I've at least a dozen. What's your point? You constant haranguing of me is the definition of combative. But I've had enough of being ranted at by a high school kid. Please stop leaving

3322:

So far, they appear to understand BLP1E, BLPNAME, VICTIM, and the goals of the BLP policy in the first place, and you do not. So that may take some convincing. However, I do not prejudge the outcome of that or any consensus discussion. It may be that you can justify it and change everyone's

3351:

I believe they were talking about this on the the talk page. Quite a consensus it was considerring it only involved 3 editors. Even in that only 2 supported not keeping the daughter's name. Such issues should have a consensus of many editors rather than just a few editors and also opinion of

2007:

As regards MarnetteD, I've only had a brief incident on one article talk page, hardly a solid case. I just picked up on her "attitude" to you on her talk page and equated it with my own experience, and wasn't happy that she wasn't giving due consideration to less experienced users. This is a

1500:

I've had enough of you leaving baseless rants at my talk page. I have been civil with you the entire time whike you're behavior is completely out of line. If you don't want me leaving comments on your talk page fine. You're totally disrespectful. And what's wrong with user of any age editing

2173:

Oh, sorry for the misspelling of your name. There can be confusing with some names with the same letters in different positions. And I wouldn't trust boxoffice.com on the production budget. It says Olympus Has Fallen is $ 100 million dollars, which is 30 million higher than what it shows on

1094:

Hey you want proof? There's no proof that either BOM or boxoffice.com is completely reliable however under the current definition of a reliable sources if a source contradicts itself in this case BOM them it can't be used as a reliable source. Also not just me but manyvother users have used

1743:

On to different matters - I noticed that you took the issue from WT:Film to the RS board, where consensus seems to indicate that you're the only editor who's pushing for boxoffice.com's inclusion and that others don't see it as a good source. Am I missing anything? Do you feel you've been

1095:

boxoffice.com as a more reliable spurce instead pf BOM. So basically you're going against the consensus and induldging in probable potential vandalism. To avoid situation like these I told you to take matter to a noticeboard otherwise you're going to strike the axe on your own feet.

2816:

Sorry but I haven't reverted the same edit more than 3 times in 24 hours. So therefore I am not edit warring. Your statement is incorrect. Besides Betty Logan has also reverted 2 times and also she has reverted the same edit of other users before. I think you should warn her too.

518:

I've made your test and I can see the problem. So, as you said, it seems that template is malfunctioning under article names with "!!". Ok, I'll see if something can be done to address that. I'll tell you when there are news. And by the way, good luck with those exams! Greetings.

4226:

is the list of approved and non-approved sites for VG articles. This covers sites we can use as sources for release dates, gameplay, making of etc and sites we can use in reception sections. There's also a bunch of sites which aren't approved in there too (like how we can't use

2873:

once? Rather than try and wheedle out of any blame, or trying to put the blame on others, perhaps your time would be better spent considering to yourself why you didn't take the step of going to the talk page after you were reverted the first time, rather than the third time? -

2047:

matter of seeing how the sources compare as a film's theatrical run winds down, and we can figure out a good practice that we can share with others for films still in theaters. Just drop a line on my talk page if you do start such a discussion on a particular article! Regards,

1700:

I don't think there is need for it right now. However if there will be I will take my discussion there. Also please note that MarnetteD has again misrepresented my statement at ANI. She won't improve her behavior but still I don't think we should just let her get away with it.

752:

messed with other references, and when you submitted your result, you didn't remember which one belonged to which, so you tagged a reference to a wrong statement. I've fixed that. Also, remember that when you use multiple citation tag, the core tag <ref name="Name 1" : -->

204:

Hello. While editing an article it sometimes happens that people type the wrong spellings and click save page without knowing their mistake. What's the best way to avoid this from happening and does Knowledge have an automatic spelling correction option? Thank you very much.

3183:

You keep saying you're following the wishes of the family, and following Knowledge policy, but failed to provide citations / links to the family's opinion or statements, and don't understand Knowledge policy. Providing links to the family's statements should have been your

1775:

trade-sourced resource as unreliable just because they don't have complete figures in some areas. I think this may a battle you have to concede; I appreciate that you're trying to do what's best for Knowledge by ensuring we have correct figures, but remember that, per

1257:

While they do state what their source(s) is/are, they do not link them, and thus we cannot verify them. In fact, after only looking at about 10 pages I found 1 which cited Knowledge as its source and another that cited Wikimedia as a whole, and thus it seems to fail

736:

I do not have time to fix this tonight, so if you wish to practice using this form of citation, maybe you can try fixing this on your own. You might not remember what you removed, so maybe you can check the version before you made the edits and see what they were.

3071:

when the family has requested privacy. Edit warring against previous consensus to keep the name out. Edit warring less than two days after previously been warned about it at another article. Edit warring to keep BLP issues in. Personal attacks in edit summaries.

1791:

things wrong with Knowledge but it because of us. I'm no philosopher or priest and can understand your concerns. I'm not trying to enforce my opinions on anybody nor I'm trying to get into a dispute with anybody. But as I have already said I trust your judgment.

2939:

before I even joined. What I mean to say here is that I perfectly understand how to behave when my edit is reverted and I understand cooperation is the most essential thing. Also please note that many editors have accussed Betty Logan of being uncooperative.

1193: 2685:

BBC, AFP, Reuters or some such report, than by all means use it as a source. Otherwise.... The policy of Knowledge is that we do not edit based on our own personal POVs (points of view) but from a neutral standpoint. And I think we both agree on this?

901:

shows that my edits were restricted to editing the Minecraft stats on the site. I didn't make any edits of the blackops, mw2 or mw3 numbers. The edits I did were well-sourced, and took into account the various platforms mentioned by the sources.

1875:

I'm really sorry about that. Recently I had seen a discussion on Darkwarriorblake's talk page where he has blamed you of disruptive behavior. I have a forgetful behavior and that is the reason why I by mistake called BattleshipMan as Bluerules.

4650:

There is an editing warning in the info box and you ignored it. Twice. You have already been warned at the article talk page not to change the info box regarding Williams' children as consensus had been reached regarding the listing.

696:. It's a core reference for multiple citations. When you remove it, please keep in mind that there are other sections depending on this core citation. Anything in the reference tag (in this case "Reference 1") will be use again whenever 1155:

I didn't bother to read your message completely for one reason, I think you were mistaken in what you were accusing me of. As soon as I saw your edit to the page and your edit summary, I quickly realized that you were confusing my edit

1501:

Knowledge even if he's a kid, teen, adult, middle-aged or even an elderly. I was 10 and a half at the time I first edited Knowledge and about to be 15 in June Happy Now! Now stop ranting at my talk page. I've had it with your insults.

1967:, as evidenced by the fact your attempt at an ANI against me was dismissed. I had told you I was tired of having a high-school student ranting at my talk page, and asked you not to post there again (which you did not heed). 3231:. Public documents are government documents which can be accessed by public. Tell me are newspapers governt documents? Is Knowledge government's info or government's document database?You know the answer to that yourself. 1759:

has said that Boxoffice.com is reliable. Apart from that I have only said that Boxoffice.com should be only included where this "n/a" is happening. Also I have proved from time to time that BOM is not completely reliable.

1589:

I'm taking the time to try to explain something as genuinely and as clearly as possible, which subsequently gets offhandedly dismissed as a "Wall of text" (by the way a few paragraphs does not a "wall of text" make, check

3332:

put it back in while that discussion is underway and short of a new consensus that it's ok. Your assertions here that you had some right to and we all misunderstand BLP somehow will get you blocked or worse. Don't do

2919:

is an excellent way of avoiding grief, annoyance and drama and I suggest you read it thoroughly and try to live up your Wiki life by it - it's a great way to avoid being dragged through the WP:3RR process needlessly. -

985:

I reverted you because you provided NO source for your figures. You cannot say that another site is inaccurate but neglect to actually provide a reliable source for your figures. You just keep changing the numbers. Per

4784:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 3121:

I or any other administrator can under policy block you right now, for what you have already done. Please calm down and work only via the talk page to find a consensus with all the other editors there.

728:

It is also important not to misspell its name. If you want to name use "Name 1", don't type it wrong or it won't show. Like this: (See this in editor window.) It creates an error below at reference #2.

1917:

Discussion copied from my talk page to this page as Tenebrae got involved and his comments had no relevance to me. This is for your own records KahnJohn, you can reply on either page and I will respond.

1975:

of your user page. No one made you put that there, and you're free to remove it. But you cannot make a self-descriptive claim and then say others are "attacking" you for using that same description. --

1571:

and because I'm a teenager my comments are rants. This insult is deliberately directed towards me. This kind of behavior is simply not tolerable on Knowledge no matter how much experienced someone is.

1838:. Marnette asked you - very nicely, I must add - not to edit his talk page further. Please respect other people's requests. If this happens again, we'll have to start discussing actual repercussions. 1080:

I'll only waste by time talking to you. I am not responsible. Who do you think then is responsible for it? One thing it is written in the policies of wikipedia that a editor should be responsible.

2205:

According to the BOM, as of 4/28/13, the foreign gross shows is at $ 35,080,467, but they are several countries listed on that site that have update their box-office gross on that movie, as show

3319:

immediately. Reinserting it after consensus is blockable. Your only policy-compliant approach is to engage with people on the article talk page and discuss it with them and change their minds.

4451:

or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Knowledge, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the

808:

I'm sorry but the article's too large for me to even notice my error. Because of it's size I didn't even bother to carefully review the changes I've made. I'll try not to repeat this problem.

359:! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Knowledge where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 4232:

weeks of work on something only for someone to come along and say "none of your sources are approved." Hope that might come in useful for you at some stage in the future. All the best sir.

3706: 3458:, the standard procedure when reverted is to start a new section on the article talk page and explain what the proposed text is, and why it is desirable. I cannot see such a discussion at 1420:

have Knowledge admin to settle a consensus on whichever the box-office site to use as reference, otherwise, there is nothing to change on whatever box-office site to pick for references.

538:

Dawnguard of Dragonborn. Therefore I think Lords of Shadow 2 should also be removed under the same policy till it has it's own article. And by the way thank you for wishing me good luck.

3794:

from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at

1724:

As I mentioned in the most-recent ANI thread, I'd be happy to lend a hand if you feel that informal mediation would help on the WP:Film talk page. I've asked Tenebrae as well. Regards,

2665:

Huh??? What??? What are you talking about? I think we have had some kind of misunderstanding. I did not blame you for anything at all. What I said was a reply to your question who the

722:

Suppose that you removed Statement A and its citation, you MUST always relocate the core reference that used to be behind Statement A, to behind Statement B or Statement C. Like this:

2935:

I think you are referring to the wrong editor about imposing their preffered version. It is actually Betty Logan who had tried enforcing her preffered version. I had already read the

1946:. He has already helped in stopping Tenebrae's personal attacks on me and I believe he will help you too. I request you to add your comments there and solidify ths case. Thank you. 1253:

I am not familiar with Statisticsbrain, and thus cannot comment on their reliability, although I see no reason in particular to trust their numbers any more than those of VGChartz.

3154:

does not require a fourth revert. It just requires edit warring behavior, reverts without sufficient involvement in the talk page or constructive involvement in the talk page.

691:

I assume that you're new, so I'm here to tell you a bit about reference tag which you accidentally removed. When you made some edits, you might come across a reference tagged as

4692: 4684: 3702: 3193:

You are asking me to take you on your word that you're just correct here, without citation, without complying with other Knowledge policy. Do you understand how that sounds?

2071:

What I meant was I cannot verify the 200 million because you incorrectly imputed the web address in the citation. I do not know the correct address. Please try to fix this.--

3270:

against mentioning the name and don't object against it) by family we can't add the name until there is explicit permission? Doesn't that become censorship of Wikipedpia.

840:. I hope it helps. Also, you may subscribe to vandal's contributions RSS feed to track all his editions but, again, if the guy has a dynamic IP, that measure is useless. -- 4452: 3996:

Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been

3843:

Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been

2002:

I'm not sure why Tenebrae is here, as his comments should properly be addressed on your talk page and have nothing to do with me. And your help request has been answered.

626:

I found out how the list has been fixed. Anyway thanks for you help. If there's something I can ever do to help you you can ask me anytime. Thank you and Happy New year.

2718:

Hello John. Just thought I'd check in to see how you're getting on. Glad to see you're still here (as am I) and I hope your ride hasn't been too bumpy! Best regards. --

4555: 4507: 3763:

a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "

3386: 3067:

This is the only warning I am giving you. Your behaviour on this article is unacceptable. Naming of the daughter (a victim of crime who is a minor), is a violation of

1669: 1620: 1522: 3200:

Again, the door is not closed. If the sources exist for the family wanting this information out there, bring them forwards, discuss them. The consensus can change.

2887:

Why didn't Betty Logan go the first time or the second time at the talk page? She too must provide explanation. I just want to say one thing over here. According to

3948: 3799: 2415: 1407: 939: 413: 795: 3798:

to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at

344: 2839:

for how to conduct yourself when your edits are changed. In future try not to revert more than once, and use the talk page to gain a consensus on matters. -

732:

The current version of Dark Knight Rises (film) article has two errors accidentally caused by you. It is marked in big red letters in the reference section.

343: 3410: 3697: 4495:

with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Knowledge's

4178: 432:

Hello, and welcome to Knowledge. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called

3406: 1207:

It's all good. Everyone is entitled to a brain fart, and it just so seems that you and I seem to be entitled to have them with regard to each other. :D

4455:

which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use

4307: 4266: 4188: 4174: 3420: 2868:

The article was, quite rightly, returned to the status quo of how it stood before the edit warring. That is the correct step to take. You edit warred

1322: 1243: 1673: 500: 4563:

You're already on thin ice for disruptive editing elsewhere in Knowledge, please don't make it worse. You've been here long enough to know better.

3136:

You can't because reverting the same edit more than 3 times in 24 hours is edit warring. Both I and Martin451 have reverted the same edit 3 times.

3075:

Missleading edit summaries claiming permission to include the name when privacy has been requested. I seriously suggest you do not re-add the name.

4392:

with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Knowledge's

2794: 1358: 1255:

They do not cite any sources for any of their figures as far as I can see (although I haven't dug that deep) and I cannot find any methodology.

4632: 4303: 4262: 4184: 3416: 1246:, not to remove the template-like functionality. As such (and as you have clearly updated the existing list), I have restored my version of 700:

comes up. So please be very careful when you remove it or you will create a citation error. If you really must remove it, you must relocate

4809: 120: 4506:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's

580: 4330: 3976: 3823: 586: 3808: 3787: 1550: 1458:

No one really knows which box office site is accurate and I'm not contradicting myself, just to let you know. I brought it up to the

558:, I would not worry too much: it is OK if it is deleted but if not, having its own article is a matter of time. And now, speaking of 220:

Hi KahnJohn. There's no automated spellchecker in the standard Knowledge editing interface (I have a feeling there's one included in

3592: 3096:

I suggest you stop trying to threaten others and discuss it in a peaceful manner. As I have already proved there is no violation of

2789: 1623:. She cannot be allowed to continue this irresponsible behavior with other users. This is seriously against the rules of Knowledge. 271: 191: 4403:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Knowledge's

4315: 2209:. I want to find out if the box-office gross on there is at where The Numbers and Boxoffice, which is why I want to calculate it. 4440: 4296:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

3756: 2620: 1247: 894: 595: 471: 84: 4805: 3972: 3819: 3008: 1437: 644: 284:

Hello. I would like to know how to create archives on UserTalk pages in case if there be need for it in the future. Thank you.

4181:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3413:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4755: 4706: 4664: 4624: 4576: 4300:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4259:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3459: 3340: 3255: 3208: 3159: 3127: 3016: 2986: 1586: 571: 554: 66: 3771:, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Knowledge has a feature that allows pages to be 3197:

edit together. You are failing both on our policies and the together part, in not being willing to work with other editors.

1997:

was assisting you now. Wish I'd had someone like that to help me in the early days. I'd say you couldn't be in better hands.

4459:

for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

734:

You totally removed a core reference for multiple citation. And you made another mistake by misspelling another one's name.

4543: 3639: 237: 105: 4640: 4500: 4496: 4480: 4397: 4373: 4237: 2891:

you are edit warring even if you are correct. Even if Betty Logan was doing the right thing she was still edit warring.

825: 110: 4796:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

4801: 4644: 2112: 1839: 1821: 1780: 1745: 1725: 2835:

reversion is warring: you are (or at least were) edit warring on that point, despite an RfC being opened. Please see

2183:

So I check out The Numbers first for full worldwide box-gross first and do a calculation from there. Is that right?

1585:

I sympathize, friend. I've had trouble with MarnetteD also. You can see at the end of the section of the talk page

4727: 4515: 4476: 2056: 1444:

so you can explain your reasons for replacing the box-office numbers from BOM to Boxoffice.com to the third party.

591: 38: 4603: 4523: 4416: 3795: 3451: 3336: 3251: 3204: 3155: 3123: 2769: 2563: 2510: 2436: 897:

page. On my talk page you indicated I made an incorrect edit. However, I believe you are mistaken. This link:

4492: 4389: 4297: 3061: 2978: 2092: 2076: 2017:

said; "keep fighting the good fight". I hope we meet again under happier editing circumstances! Good luck! --

1744:

misrepresented or slighted by anyone (aside from the age-related remarks, which have already been dealt with)?

364: 114: 4251:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

4165:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3397:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2206: 899:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_best-selling_video_games&diff=534359167&oldid=534247229

4233: 4108: