User talk:Kirkoconnell

Anyway leave a post if I can help or if you want to message me.

Re: harp seal

Hi Kirkoconnell. Please edit the Harp seal page and if you do get into a dispute with him then I will check into it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

You do not have an e-mail address registered in your preferences, that means I cannot speak with you privately. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an e-mail added, it is kirkoconnell[a--t]hotmail[--dot--]com. I just verified it, apparently was not verified before.--Kirkoconnell 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I still can't use the e-mail this user button, but I manually entered it and sent you an e-mail. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

John W. Morgan

This page is now listed on the biography of living persons noticeboard. You could take a break from edit this article and let the rest of us keep an eye on it. Sometimes that's the best way to reduce the stress level. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 07:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Kirkoconnell 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be at least 31 hours of relative peace. Crockspot 02:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for all of your work regarding keeping the John W. Morgan article factually straight despite the team that was working against you and the repeated harassment. Keep up the good work! P3net 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nova Scotia Wikiproject

You were the fastest click away.... How do I join? I have already started 2 stubs, but how do I officially join Wikiproject Nova Scotia?

Image copyright problem with Image:Flag of Nova Scotia.svg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Flag of Nova Scotia.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is a help desk question at How do I update an existing image? where a user desires to replace the flag you uploaded. Would you please look into this? Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi kirk. For whatever reason Wikipedia won't let me update the SVG you uploaded. Would you be able to replace it with this one http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Nova_Scotia_Flag.svg preserving the copyright and fair use information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.166.214.5 (talk) 13:48, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

• This looks great! Glad to have the modern flag up there now.--198.166.214.5 18:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgan

Check the edits last night, and the comments on that user's talk page. Does that newspaper even exist? - Crockspot 14:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I see you've already been there. - Crockspot 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Blue eyes

He is toast. Blocked with a one-edit history. Pretty good, eh? - Crockspot 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot

What are ya talking about. KO doesn't and didn't check any newspaper before he deletes? The Cape Breton Post is available online so you don't nee to depend on that nut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.13.178 (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have a link? The last link to the CBPolitics Weekly didn't work, and appeared to be a fabricated source. I still have not been provided with a working link to this alleged publication, so as far as I am concerned, it's a fantasy newspaper. - Crockspot 17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

CB Politics does not exist. The Cape breton post is what we are talking about, and that website is www.cbpost.com. None of the pieces of information are listed there. -Kirkoconnell 18:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, I have been seeing these posts being made for a little while now, and have come to the conclusion that this person posting is just immature and probably gets a kick out of seeing his posts reverted. Its nothing but garbage, so if I happen to see anything I will revert it for you. I noticed some changes to the CBRM page in this manner a few moments ago and reverted them.142.167.232.199 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I was called a vandal for trying to help by reverting a post on Mayor Morgan's page. That idiot had deleted the picture and mentioed the IQ thing again. But as it turns out, I'm the vandal because I reverted back to your last post. Sorry for causing this trouble, if I see this idiot making nonsense posts again, I will just leave them and not risk being labeled a vandal for trying to help.142.167.255.165 00:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

John W. Morgan 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John W. Morgan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I'm in danger of violating it, also. Perhaps Morgan has fallen off the BLP watchlist? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I left on note on your site. Tried the discussion, when the information was agreed to be excluded, they entered it anyway. Then they vandalised. Then they added crazy stuff and agrued that it should all be left in because one small sentence of what they entered was true. Read the discussion, it is all there. -Kirkoconnell 15:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so some idiot keeps writing stupid edits and its Kirk that's going to get banned for fixing the edits that the idiot is making. I think you should take a look at some of the edits that were made, and if you still think Kirk is the vandal, than I honestly don't understand wikipedia at all. Its posible this was what the idiot wanted from the start, make Kirk revert his edits so he would break some rule. If Kirk is banned from editing, I'm out of here for good. Why would staying make sense? 142.167.255.223 21:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A previously banned editor, keeps putting inaccurate information about John Morgan on pages related to Sydney, Nova Scotia. Unless the articles are locked, we have to keep deleting the information until the editor is banned again.--Abebenjoe 03:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. It was already decided that he would not report me. I think people are failing to see all of the edits that are being done and focusing on the one or two seemingly positive edits. The people making the chnages are not agruing one point or another anymore, they are just changing and add silly stuff for spite. We need these pages locks to Ips on a perm basis for now so we can control the vandalsim. Its a big step but it must be taken here.-Kirkoconnell 03:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

KO repeatedly violates 3rr rule. He should be banned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.13.178 (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay Mr. Ip person, you obviously have kept up to date on the 3RR rule. The reason I am not banned now after that warning is because 3 RR rule does not apply to vandalism or unsourced materal. -Kirkoconnell 14:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're almost right. 3RR doesn't apply to reverting WP:BLP violations, or to reverting socks of blocked or banned editors, but I'm afraid it does apply to reverting implausible unsourced positive statements about the subject, as long as they are not negative about anyone else. That's why you need more eyes on the article so that your reverts won't technically violate WP:3RR. Perhaps semi-protection will help. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well i think when it is absortly positive stuff, like changing the name of the Town because someone is from the town or saying things like he is one of only 5 people in the world who can speak anicent greek or eyptgian, it is not too much to say okay, that is just silly. There is nothing in John Morgans background that would suggest he got ANY language training in ANY language. When it gets to that lvl of sillyness, it should be removed as vandalism. -Kirkoconnell 19:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Rubin, the problem with KO violating the 3rr rule is that he is gone mad with power and he deletes everything he hasn't written himself saying everything everyone else says is wrong and he taunts all the other editors trying to build the page as he banns them. He has not added one thing to the sites himself. He thinks he is some sort of expert but has nothing to add to the sites himself. Wiki is supposed to work on concensus not self appointed experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.12.214 (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have a problem. It may be with Kirk, maybe with John Morgan, maybe with life in general, but harrassing an editor who is only trying to help by editing a Wikipedia article makes you look pathetic. It wouldn't matter what article you edited with this nonsense, it would be reverted. Kirk is only doing what any other editor would do if you did this to their pages. Maybe its time you grow up. You say you support John Morgan, then you should try to support him in other ways than writing nothing but nonsense about him. How does making stupid stuff up in your head improve articles. Just look at some of the stuff you edited....unfounded IQ, use tar from the tar ponds to pave streets, succeeded by Vince Hall, paving sydney harbour...Enough is enough....142.167.225.41 01:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that is just rude. You are mixing up issues and people. Some of the later edits have been silly but only after KO took over the sites repeatedly violating the 3RR rule like he owned Wiki and with him alone deciding what was vandalism and adding not one thing to any site and urging people to be banned and sites frozen with almost no content. It is not his decision alone on what things are proper edits on these things. Wiki works on consensus not individual experts (or those posing as experts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.12.214 (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you are confusing the issue. You purposefully vandalism artciles then complain about 3rr when I revert them. 3RR does not apply to vandalism because vandalism, regardless of how many times is it done, it is to be reverted. You can complain about how I regulate content, but the John Morgan article for example was expanded and new information added, but everything that was non-sense/vandalsim/unsourced claims of dubious validity were removed. One of the edits that you add to the article is this "Morgan, a student of ancient history and a lawyer by profession, holds a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Dalhousie University and is reported by History Magazine (December 14, 2001) to be one of only five scholars in the modern world fluent in both the ancient Egyptian and Greek languages. He is reported to have an IQ of 176 (Cape Bretoner Magazine, June 22 1999). " You REALLY cannot agrue that is not nonsense. Sure, he does have a MBA but thats the ONLY thing in that whole sentance thats fact and the rest is bullshit. How can I let an article have that silliness in it? Just because four ips come on and revert to bullshit does not mean ther is a consensus. Wikipedia while done on consensus usually, is done by consensus when the facts are disputed. The edits you are doing are not even facts so no consensus can be done. Encyclopedias are not democracies. -Kirkoconnell 02:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, the Wiki encyclopedia is supposed to be democratic. You don't understand the process and so you think you have a right to carry on like a dictator. It realy shows what you are about that you so quickly try to ban people and lock up sites so you don't have to answer for your repeated violations of Wiki rules. If you ban all reasonable edits, you will start to get silly stuff but the problem is not everyone else it is you. So just stop violating the rules and the system will work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogcat555 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Show me where it says that Wikipedia is a democracy were random ips all can get together and overrule writing policy to include information that is more then likely make up. I answer to wikipedia regularly. I've asked people to get to get me banned. Remember, I don't ban people. I tell people, hey look at what that guy is doing, and they ban them because they are clearly either vandalising or breaking the rules. I have creditablity in that I have never purposefully vandalised pages. Some people will purposefully vandalise them then agrue that one small point is true, believe me. It is easy to see when I try to keep articles honest and sourced and someone else comes out with the craziest stuff on the internet why I do not get banned. An example of your "factual information" "As part of the C.B.R.M. Glace bay is represented municipally by Mayor John W. Morgan, a Glace Bay native. Morgan has a tested IQ of 176, (Cape Bretoner Magazine, June 22 1999). While attending college at St. Francis Xavier University, Morgan patented one of the earliest designs for a retractable syringe. Morgan is a close friend of American author and philosopher Chris Langan. " Cape Bretoner Magazine does not exist. In June of 22 1999, John was not the mayor and out of the public eye for the most part so why would a magazine quote his IQ? Seems to not make ANY sense that a fictional magazine would report on someone of no note at that time. Also, Chris Langan is a well reported person whose movements are rather documented. The mayor rarely leaves the CBRM and Chris is rarely outside of his home state of New Jersey. It seems highly unlikely that the world's super genius would be good friends with a guy who is from a province I cannot find any record of Chris even visiting. Is it too much to ask that you quote a verifiable and realiable source for such grandose claims? I think not. And I am sorry you don't meet my high standards of one valid source for you information but thats what it takes. I am sorry my "high" one valid source standard, which is lower then the expected three source mininium people for information in articles, is too much for you to do. I know that the research involved in finding one valid source is time comsuming, especailly if you make stuff up. Maybe when you get one valid source we can talk about not instantly removing it as vandalism or unsourced information, espiecally given the claims are somewhat extraordinary. -Kirkoconnell 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kirkoconnell. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time.Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. β^_command 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you're wanting to do vandal patrol, I use Popups and Twinkle, they work great together, and are easy to set up. But Firefox is the preferred browser. - Crockspot 00:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah see and I don't use those so I thought Vandal proof was the way to go. I guess because I do a lot of revert waring with those other guys they rejected my app. Kinda sucks. I was hoping to do some more vandal patroling. Thanks for the info though Crockspot. I guess I'll have to remember those warnings. -Kirkoconnell 00:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Popups lets you look at diffs and other wiki links without having to load the page, so it is very quick to run down the diffs in recent changes. Twinkle puts extra tabs in your browser for warning, reporting, nominating for deletion, etc., plus three rollback functions. (Pretty much all the same stuff vandalproof has.) Saves a ton of work. You just have to add one line for each of them into your monobook.js file, purge your cache, and it's done. But like I said, Twinkle doesn't work that well with IE. But Firefox is free and better than IE anyway. - Crockspot 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

KO

If you avoid violating the 3RR Rule and repeatedly whining to ban people who disagree with you you might get that authority but but they have to be careful not to let people like you taking over the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.12.214 (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

KO

It might also be a good idea not to taunt and brag about editors who you get banned for disagreeing with you since it makes you look immature and drunk with power. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.12.214 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• 3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism. Your only purpose here on Wikipedia seems to be to vandalize and insert bogus and unsourced information. KO was probably denied vandalproof access because his edit history is fairly short. So save your lectures, and straighten yourself up. By the way, for this little bit of harassment, I'm reporting you, so expect another block. - Crockspot 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I expected a response like that. Remember, if I committed 3RR, I would have been banned myself. Which one of us gets banned regularly for violating Wikipedia policy? Oh yeah, you. So maybe you are an expert at getting banned but not an expert in Wikipedia policy, because you are continuously getting banned. -Kirkoconnell 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He's got a week off. - Crockspot 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ..214, you two should not be using your positions to taunt other editors. Crockpot would have his Administrator license and KO would get his Vandalproof designation if you weren't acting so disrespectfully to other editors. I think ..214 was just giving you two some advise because you are both too immature to figure things out. I am sure if you twostraighten out the Wiki will work out for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogcat555 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well whilst I agree that you are allowed an opinion, you are obviously biased from the outlook on this. I encourage you to read the agruments before you comment if you are not. This guy has called me down to the lowest, accused me of crazy stuff and out right vandalised articles, as well as including fantasic unsourced information, and when I removed it called for MY banning. Sorry I sometimes gloot when he gets banned. lol I think it was only last week he was trying to get me banned. Never seems to work.... -Kirkoconnell 02:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirk Oconnell is out of control

This user has serious OWNERSHIP issues in that he refuses to allow any changes to any article relating to Cape Breton and John W. Morgan. Other users want to add information about Mayor Morgan (stuff other than the high IQ) and this user continues to mindlessly delete it.

There are not a lot of secondary sources available for information regarding relatively low profile places/individuals. Kirk continues to ignore solid evidence of documented debates and tv/radio appearances.

This has to stop. In his latest edit this user states "do I have to have you banned too?" before some other verbal insult.

This guy is out of control and as a result everyone in Cape Breton suffers because he is obsessed with preventing additions. We are not talking about US Presidential Candidates here, sources are limited. This should be common sense.

--- I should also add that this user is trying to get all cape breton-related articles protected simply because a number of people want to add to the articles (admittedly this includes the IQ issue). As a result, CB-related articles get locked down because of this user's obsession with keeping out anything related to IQ. This place is supposed to be a democracy anyway.. kirk is the only user who disagrees. So as a result, all Cape Breton articles are locked? That's terrible.

• Nice try, but Kirk is not the bad guy here. I watch those articles as well, and there seems to be some sort of hallucinogen in the water around Cape Breton, because a bunch of you anons seem to want to add fantasy information that has no source, sometimes even stooping to fabricating fraudulent sources. If you have actual real information that cites a reliable source, I am sure that Kirk, or any other reasonable editor, will not have a problem with it. If you just want to add stupid crap that does not cite a source, I suggest that you take your act down the road to uncyclopedia.com . They even have a nice article on John Morgan that is right up your alley. Wikipedia does not publish crap that is phony, stupid, and does not cite a reliable source. - Crockspot 17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

One, if I were an out of control dictator, this post would not exist. Dictators don't like critism. Two, I wish to sprotect articles, meaning anons cannot log into any computer at and school and create silly stuff up. Do we forget the "John Morgan knows five ancient Languages" or "Morganville" crap some people tried to pull off? I am reverting mostly KNOWN VANDALISM, it is just this one piece of information I revert, the apparently unsourcable IQ information, that John himself denies to me. If the man himself denies it to me, you are going to need some very good proof to convince me, and my standard of proof is one creditable source on this subject. ONE. Its not 100, its not 1000. I am not asking for PhD research, just one creditable resource to refute information about someone.. that THAT SOMEONE TOLD ME WAS NOT CORRECT. Also, it is you(you plural) that are removing information. You revert to your latest post without review. I've had to, on numerous occasions, revert a post and then edit it to include the information that you removed, just so that when you revert it back, which you always do blindly, at least the contributation is saved.

Yeah, I'd like the Cape Breton articles locked from anons. You guys have yet to prove to me that you have contributed anything. You just don't want to create an account that could be traced, knowing your vandalism will cause you to be banned. Also, I said "I have to have this website sprotected too? Please give this up. You are just being patheticly silly now." Not do I have to ban you too. Well at least the last time anyway, and yes this is getting pathetic and silly. You added the information to John's article. Everyone who impartially reviewed it said it should go. You kept adding it. The page got sprotected and you got blocked so you move on to the Glace Bay article and added it there. IQ information has no presedence as far as I can tell in the persons article, let alone in the town article. The same cycle happens, you are now putting it in the ISLAND THAT THE TOWN THAT THE GUY WAS BORN IN article. How silly is that? You just can't take the hint. Source your information and add VALID information. Or you will get banned and the information removed. -Kirkoconnell 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirk, I just reverted this idiots vandalism on the Cape Breton Island entry. I'll keep an eye on it as well from now on, I didn't think he was pathetic enough to go that route but I guess he is. CapersAreCool 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Welcome aboard Capers. It will be good to have another local up there keeping an eye on things. You must be drinking the bottled water, eh? - Crockspot 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Crockspot how's that Administrator application going big guy? I guess it's nice that you found an issue to latch onto here. It's too bad you're teamed up with kirk o who has obvious protectionist issues on CB articles.

All this talk about IPs is insanely stupid. 95% of internet users in Cape Breton are on 1 or 2 ISPs (Aliant or Eastlink). People are going on here and trying to add to articles adding legitimate information about morgan and other people/places and kirk continuously vandalizes the articles by deleting it. Morgan does have a US patent for a retractable sryinge. Don't believe me? LOOK IT UP on the US patent website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.240.75 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, Morgan WAS a member of the Mega Society. I know this because I was a member of Prometheus and Morgan was also a member of this group. He's now a politician so of course he's going to dance around the issue, but the fact remains he is involved with several high IQ societies. He's not going to say "yeah, I have X IQ", but I guarantee you he'd never deny it either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.240.75 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1) No, most users use Easlink, Seaside or Aliant. The IP anons block is not "stupid" because there is known vandalism, other then the IQ information. How are you to control it otherwise? 2) It is not vandalism to revert unsourced information, espeically if that information does not pretain to the artcile in question. 3) Where is the Patent? The website is searchable and it listed all patents. I found the Canadian patent: http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent_number=2142731 It references the fact that it is a international patent claim from the original American inventors. 4) Believe it or not, telling me you, the anonymous person who was in this Mega Society with Morgan is not enough to deter me. Again, Morgan explained to me that he was not. So I will need a bit more then please believe me, I was there. And which group is it? Mega or Prometheus? You claim you were in Prometheus and Morgan was too so you know it was in the Mega? That doesn't make sense. Yes it is true polictians would dance around the issue. That is why I am RESPECTING MORGAN and NOT letting rumours enter his article. I am not sure what significance IQ has in BLP articles for one, unless they are known solely for intellicual achievements. Morgan is not, he is the Mayor of the CBRM. With that said, I am pretty friging convinced the IQ should not be included in random articles with a barely tangiable relation to Morgan. Your agruments are just getting silly. If it on you to come up with evidence that is solid and veriable, not me to disprove. Read the policies. Again, if you did not agree with them, don't edit. -Kirkoconnell 13:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy requires consensus on Talk before the direct edits which KO is doing. KO is a lone voice forcing his opinion on the whole Wiki. KO should try to win his arguement here and only then try to edit the site; not the other way around. Crockspot was kicked off editing this and all Wiki sites for the same reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.14.146 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not against "whole wiki" I'm against at MAX three people, all of whom do not make positive edits, in fact most edits are unsourced and they are anons, who, even after going through the various resolution processes still believe they should have their point put forward, without evidence, simply because they believe the information should be in there. They take the fact that Wikipedia uses a concensus policy for the MOST part, but if you get four people on an article saying that the sky is in fact red and no one replies it does not mean the sky is red. I think it is ironic that people who choose not to follow just about every policy wikipedia has try to use the one policy they think is in your favour, and still fail at that and expect it to work. *sigh* Silly people. And Crockspot was kicked off editing, he volunteering left for personal reasons. His discussion page wouldn't be up if he was banned. Get your facts straight and stop making them up.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User Habits

In my -opinion- (and I understand this is a matter of opinion), this user has SERIOUS ownership issues in that he erases any info regarding Cape Breton (in particular John Morgan) that he does not like. As a result, most Cape Breton articles have been protected. The protection tags have been devastating because the average user is unable to add to articles.

This user also states that he is above the 3RR rule and the original research rule (though, yes, he will argue that the ORR was not violated because he was only doing it for the discussion page (unlike him, I will acknowledge his true point of view)).

With a heavy connection to user Crockspot, who also has a history of questionable behavior, I would suggest that this user ought to be watched very carefully because he takes his POV way too far in many circumstances. -"Some Ip who didn't leave his name."

Well nameless person, I think that there is barely anything in your statements that is true. I do not have ownership issues, I have following policy issues. You have not being able to follow policies issues, in particular, with the John morgan article. The 3RR rule does not apply to unsourced information in BLP articles. AGAIN I tell you this. I do not say, imply nor request that I get speical rules on Wikipedia, I just follow policy. Again, original research rule applies to information in an article, it is okay to use it in a discussion. That is not a false point of view, that is the policy. Crockspot was brought into this because he was the guy that was asked for a 3rd point of view, and you did not like his opinion, insulted him various times and then claim he has done things wrong on Wikipedia. What questionable behavior is there? Removing unsourced material? Please, you are just sounding sillier and sillier. I think it is highly ironic that someone who is uncomprimsing and unwilling to accept the numerous policies of Wikipedia and numerous third neutral points of view on a subject is willing to questions peoples points of view on articles when said person was the one who tried to get discussion and asked for a neutral person review it. If anything, I have been the only person willing to accept points of view and consider them. lol You have yt to make a valid point and none of your agruments, if you have them, hold water. If you don't like wikipedia policy, there are more sites to offer your opinions. -Kirkoconnell 02:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Glace Bay

Hi Kirk, when you get a chance, can you check out the section titled "Geography" on the Glace Bay page. Someone edited some info today to that section and I'm not sure if its vandalism or not. I find the entire section odd, I don't understand what any of it has to do with geography, but I didn't want to touch it myself since I'm not sure what should be there but I figured you would be the best person to ask. Thanks. CapersAreCool (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirkoconell vs. Kirkoconnell

Hello... for some reason, I had User:BayBoyBlues on my watchlist, so I noticed your post regarding the confusing usernames. FYI, I have filed a notice at the Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention message board regarding this. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that was fast - the account has been blocked. If you have any future issues like this, you can file a request there (or feel free to ask me for assistance, if you like.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded here Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_Page_Help/Help_Desk#user:kirkoconell, but seems like its been solved. MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirk, I just blanked the user page and talk page of an account that looked like your name but spelled a little different. I assume it has something to do with what you're talking about here, but if I was wrong, I appologize. I was only doing what my I felt was the right thing to do. CapersAreCool (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Careful with your reverts

Just wanted to make sure you noticed that you reverted vandalism with this edit when I'm sure it was the previous editor you wanted to revert, you actually replaced the vandal edits. Cheers. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the concern but the time frame shows that he must have reverted it as I was reverting it, within two minutes of each other, so while I appreicate the warning I think it is clearly a time issue and not an issue with carefulness. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Map

You seem to believe that the whole matter is settled. I have no intention of removing those dots. They mark the two forts, I did not mark all of Acadie. As for the article, it does not meet requierments for deletion. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

It is not me whom you have to convince. Merely stating "It does not meet the requirements" is not a defence. It does. You have to defend why it doesn't. The matter is indeed settled to me as you have failed to support yourself in any regard to my repeated requests of a precedent to include them. If I can find precendent that they should not be there and you cannot find a single precedent to keep them, thats a settled debate. I suggest you look for Colonial maps that include temperarly held (not to mention quickly abandoned) forts as parts of an empire, and then we can have a discussion. Until then, you are purposeful excusing yourself from being able to particpate. If your agrument has no precedent, it is actually a non agrument. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have stated it over and over again and I'm not going to bother to do it anymore. Just look at the entire discussion we had and you can see. Take a look at the Belgium Empire(it was an empire, the article does no state it wasn't). They have that tiny dot in China. But yet again "who cares, everyone was doing it". And I'm sure no one raided each others forts in the 17th century or established trading posts either. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm going to be honest with you Red4tribe, you are going to have to read my comment again because it is not my intention to be your on call history teacher. I explained quite well why that was there and why it is not disputed. It was a concession. Acadia was never conceded. Thats a pretty rock solid argument. You are obviously confused. You have misread just about everythign I have written to the point that I do not actually believe you understand english. I am sorry to say that, I'm not trying to be mean, but the fact that you still believe the Beglium colony example is the thesis to your agrument, after I thoroughly ripped it apart is mind blowing. Seriously. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You want an example for forts? Here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Denmark-Norway_and_possessions.png

The Danish owned a couple of Forts in Africa and they are listed. Your're going to find some way to dodge this one and make up a fake excuse while you continue to gloat(yes you are) over something that never happened, but lets see what happens with this. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

1) Most of those "dots" are small colonies. 2) They were bought from nations, ergo, transfered through a consession process. 3) they were held for over a 100 years. I'll admit this is a slightly better example to have but again if you had actually read the Wikipedia page you would see that these are completely different then the Acadia fort "take overs". These example show a long held fort that was bought can count as a over seas pocession. I concede that. That is not the Acadia forts, clearly. So this is not an argument that helps you at all. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You should join the Brooklyn Dodgers. (Red4tribe (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Well besides the fact that the Brooklyn dodgers are not a baseball team, I am a Redsox fan. I do find it funny that you equate "completely ripping apart your agrument" with "dodging" your argument. Very interesting indeed. I suppose you can never be wrong if you actually have no idea what you were taling about. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not get my joke. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

I get your failed attempt at humour. You do not get valid agruments. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Brooklyn was established by the Dutch, and I didn't really expect you to fidn it funny anyway. Let me ask you this. How can you seriously deny that those forts were never under Dutch control? (Red4tribe (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm actually done agruing with you, you obviously lack the ability to understand reason so I am just going to follow the avenues to get this stuff fixed.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is proved. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

O.....k.....-Kirkoconnell (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Acadie

Hmm, I see what you're saying. First, can I ask you to assume good faith; no editor would want their work to be called "gibberish" (I certainly wouldn't :)). I'm not familiar with Dutch Acadie, but the fact that it's disputed is something. Wouldn't it then be better to merge the information with Dutch colonization of the Americas? At the very least, I think a redirect should be introduced. I think the Dutch Acadie question shouldn't just be deleted, because by the nature of the dispute it should be retained in some form. What do you think? PeterSymonds | talk 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do what you want. Look it up. It is plain as day bullshit, but hey, the article should be deleted but merged is better I suppose. You've actually killed wikipedia for me. Seriously, I spent all day agruing with an dumb dutch fuck over this nonsense and I am so pissed off that I have to defend keeping shit honest, its unbelieveable. That and I have the Flu. I need better hobbies then to agrue with morons.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I had no intention to do that, please keep a cool head. My point is that Dutch Acadie is a term used in a reliable publication, and therefore the term should be retained. If the article is inaccurate, then it should be cut down to a plausible redirect. I'd like to add that I don't empower either party; I am just thinking about what's best for Wikipedia. PeterSymonds | talk 22:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny, thats what I was doing. I guess the difference between us is I know this is bullshit, and you have to figure it out. I wash myself of this. Like Dutchy invent history. See if I care anymore.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Is the information correct, but the title misplaced? Or is the information wrong as well? Please help me by providing evidence. So far, only Red has provided me with a source for his arguments. PeterSymonds | talk 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well for one, his sources are all bullshit. Everyone of the ones he has posted actually say that the Dutch Claimed Acadia, not Acadie, Acadie is french so the english article should be Acadia, after teh dutch took over two fort, in the whole of Acadia. They then left those forts because they couldn;t defend them. They then abandoned their claim to Acadia in a treaty soon after. Acadia was never dutch and the forts were never actually colonized. So I challaged him to find an example of a simular case to include forts of that nature in an Empire, he is under the believe that Acadia was in the Dutch empire. He has failed to met my challage at ever trun to the point where it stopped talking about it, then created this article, i guess as a way to fulfill his own need to Acadia to have been Dutch.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. If you can provide me with a source that says that Acadie/Acadia was never part of the Dutch Empire, I'll take it AfD. I might need permanent links (diffs) to any other discussions you've had about this on other talk pages. PeterSymonds | talk 22:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Empire:Acadiahere were the intial arguments for exclusion Level of DetailMore concerted agruments for exclusion. The funny thing is that every source document I;ve found, either that he sent or wikipedia article says that the Dutch never had more then a paper claim. The Dutch colonies of north america articles says that as well. Anyway I'm off for a couple of hours, I'll check in to see if you are convinced yet:P .-Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Your argument looks okay to me. I've started a discussion here which will hopefully reach a "final" consensus. Again, I sincerely apologise if I've made your time a misery; it was never my intention. I always try to act for the good of Wikipedia. Hope I'm forgiven. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 23:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI - "provide me with a source that says that Acadie/Acadia was never part of the Dutch Empire" - that's the wrong way round. Sources have to be provided (by that Red4tribe chap) that say it was "a part of the Dutch Empire". I'll bet you wouldn't be able to find a source that says Moscow "was not part of" the Dutch Empire or indeed that Mars "was not conquered by" the Lord High Chief Commissioner (Bernard, to his friends) of Afghanistan in 1213. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats basically been my point, every article says sure forts were taken but it was hardy a "takeover" of the colony in part or as a whole. They were not even active forts and they were never defended, but rather actually abandanded. It is hard to prove a negative isn't it? -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to hot-foot it sharpish to the Dutch Acadie farce of an article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I despair...

...I really do. [1] Unsourced, poorly written, spelling mistakes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see you write 1/10 as well in Dutch. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Well, that's why I don't contribute to the Dutch Wikipedia. I know the limits of my abilities. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are not any spelling mistakes. And really, I seriously doubt my english is that bad. I can't say since I've been on here(over 2 years) anyone besides you has made a negative comment on it. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

A riot "broke" out, not "beroke" out. The "independence", not "indepencece" of Belgium was recognised. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if you have never hit a wrong key before. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

To be fair, you'd sooner see me at Times Square, twirling on my head, naked, spitting golden nickles while singing yankee doodle dandy before you see me having a conversation in Dutch but when I make a post I usually treat it like a surgrey, and I'm afraid a few times too often you've amputated the wrong leg.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing Deletion Tags

Please do not remove Redirect for discussion notices from articles, as you did with Dutch Acadie‎. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

John W. Morgan references

Kirk, since you probably know more about the John W. Morgan article than anyone else here, I was wondering if you could just take a quick look at the references provided and see if they are actually referencing what's in the article, because I'm having a hard time trying to understand them. The first reference is supposed to be a source dealing with the lawsuit, but the title of the article being used is about $504,000 being spent on recreation projects in Cape Breton. The second reference is supposed to be a source for his opposition to surface mining of coal, and there is even a quote to back it up, but the title of the article being used as the source deals with $504,000 for recreation projects in Cape Breton, the same subject as the first reference, only dated a year earlier. I just find it strange how both sources appear to be about the same topic, and even stranger that an article on recreation money would also include information on Mayor Morgan's opposition to strip mining. I have only been editing here since February, so I'm still learning as I go. Any advice you have will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. I did it quickly so the reference could be better formated. I am kinda busy at the moment. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page

Thanks for the note. Apologies for the delay. Have now replied on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo request

Is Halifax Airport convenient to where you are? If so, would you mind photographing the Air Canada Jazz headquarters? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you in advance :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kirkoconnell

Hi Kirkoconnell. I noticed you created an RfA page some time ago. I was wondering as to what the status of that RfA might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. Please let me know if you still intend to run for adminship with that RfA; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete it for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, as you have indicated you understand the risks and possibility of failure, I have transcluded (aka submitted) your request for review. You can see it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Kirkoconnell. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, thank you for nominating yourself for adminship but, unfortunately, it looks like it isn't going to succeed. Administrators are trusted, experienced editors who have worked in a variety of areas and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines because the tools give you the ability to block other users, delete pages and protect pages from editing (amongst a few other things). May I politely suggest you withdraw the nomination for now and then try again in a few months. If you'd like to withdraw it, just say so under your nomination statement and someone will close it for you. If you need any help at all, just reply here and slap {{tb|Kirkoconnell|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kirkoconnell}} on my talk page and I'll be right back. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I closed your RfA per WP:NOTNOW, although WP:SNOW would have also been a valid reason. It seems clear the community is looking for more experience in a variety of areas, so I would suggest waiting six or more months at a minimum before considering asking again. Best of luck.--~TPW 04:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't work out. I'd definitely support you in a second attempt, as mentioned, in a couple months, with more experience. Best of luck in the future! Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Glace Bay, Nova Scotia

Hi Kirk, thanks for the assist with the vandalism IP in this article. I'm after reverting the same vandalism edits a couple of times now, and wasn't sure how to proceed, so hopfuly your block request will be accepted. I know we're dealing with two different IPs, but since the last number is only off by 1, and both of added identical information, I would say its the work of one person hopping back and forth. Cmr08 (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You know me, I got your back brother. I always pay attention but you are usually so quick to correct. I was happy to be able to contribute for a change LOL. Have a nice day -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that one of the IPs has been blocked, but probably isn't much help if the same person is editing from more than one IP. Cmr08 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Been blocked, been blocked for three years. Hot damm, Wikipedia isn't dicking around with anon IP's anymore. One IP out of the equation for three years is better then out of the equation for one week. I suspect it will force people to register, as they should. Either way good job us! -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to see this

Hi Kirk, I think you will want to see this edit that was made on the Glace Bay article [2]. Some idiot IP added you to the notable person list. It was quickly reverted but the editor who removed the edit, stated in the edit summary that it was self promotion, which is obviously not true. Any idea why someone would make this edit? Seems kind of childish to me. Cmr08 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the heads up, I'm going to message him to explain it wasn't me but someone trying to add me. It seems odd and likely malicious, but I should say that I did run for office once so it could be a well meaning supporter. I just really really doubt it. Thanks again! -Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A check of the history shows the IP also added nonsense to a bunch of other articles, so I would say it was an attempt to cause problems, not promote. I know this is off topic from wikipedia, but I din't know you ran until now. I Don't know how I missed that one. I too have run for political office, so I know it takes guts to put yourself out there like that. The way I look at it, the number of votes doesn't matter, the fact that others were willing to put their trust and faith in you and put an X next to your name is an unbelievable honour. I can't wait to do it again. Cmr08 (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

BayBoyBlues

It looks like any edits this user added to Wikipedia yesterday (John Morgan, Glace Bay, etc.) is pure fiction (vandalism?). I don't know how to revert his edits without him re-reverting (if that is even a word) them immediately. I don't have any experience with this. Do you have a suggestion? Thank you. Ken Heaton (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't just the edits made yesterday, it's every edit that user has ever made to Wikipedia. It's the same nonsense that people have beem trying to put in John Morgan's article for years now. This BayBoyBlues even predates me, and I've been editing 4 years now, so I would say the Morgan article is a pretty good example of long term vandalism. I know both Kirk and myself have had to revert that article over-and-over again as some people are convinced the man has an IQ of 176 and will do anything to have it included in the article. But Kirk, I have to wonder, how someone with a 176 IQ would think it was posible to pave water? lol. Cmr08 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It got to the point where I got a picture with John holding a newspaper saying that the information either wasn't true or shouldn't be there. And i guess you can pave over anything if you have enough asphalt.Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You two are forgetting one thing, the man has an IQ of 176, while you guys sound like "Dumb" and "Dumber"BayBoyBlues (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

OHHHHHH SNAPPPPPP!!!!! You got me really, really good there. I am glad actually that you came here and decided to say that. Before, I thought you were just some random "special" kid who wondered into the library and started changing things because you did not know any better. But it turns out that you are actually aware that you are spewing bullshit on Wikipedia, seemingly, in order to paint John in a ridiculously positive light. Well, I will revert all of your edits, because they are bullshit, and then I will get you blocked because you are obviously trying to vandalize articles to reflect better on John. Oh, but you did get me good there. By the way, 1994 called, it wants it's joke back. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Cbbarnstar.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

DRN

There has been some discussion and resolutions on the case you opened. Feel free to respond on the DRN page! TheMagikCow (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Replied. Really do not care anymore. Joy of editing Wikipedia is just no longer there. Thanks anyway. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a shame to lose you. The views at DRN are not at all attacking your ability, you have made some very valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Everything will have two sides and it was totally right to point it out. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not the views in DRN, it is that I had to go there in the first place to get the changes I thought were required. The Be Bold concept tends to lean hard into partisanship and trollism. I try to stick to the facts, just all of them and not the ones tacked on and voted by committee. A committee is an animal with four back legs. after all -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kirkoconnell. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Digital civics) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Digital civics, Kirkoconnell!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for your new article on Digital Civics. Please note that the notices at the top of the article, on editing and references, still apply.

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kirkoconnell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Angela simmonds.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Angela simmonds.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shadow Footprints (December 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shadow Footprints and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kirkoconnell! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, can I please get more explicit information?

Needs to be more "in-depth", but it appears pretty in-depth to me with several articles linked with direct references (claims passing mentions are not accepted but seems to skim over the explicit references).

Reliable? Can you expand? I checked the linked article and it seems to fit what it states.

Secondary? I do not understand this point, this is after reviewing the articles. It seems to almost be by definition a secondary sources as many of the sources linked are articles about the concept.

And a lot of the links are third party, so I don't understand the independent comment.

Can you at least explain examples of each of these so that I can improve the article?

Given I submitted this article about 2 minutes before it was declined, I just do not believe it was evaluated correctly, and if it was, then more clear direction other than 4 vague points that don't seem to actually be true ought to have been provided.

I am working on good faith here but it feels like I am the only one. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The content of the sources needs to be more in-depth not the draft. Estelle Clements work is a primary source, we need sources that discuss her work. digitalcivics.org is a primary source and https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5544396/ doesn't mention "Shadow Footprints"? Theroadislong (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5544396/ doesn't mention "Shadow Footprints".

It mentions "shadow profiles", which is clearly listed and defined in the context in the article.

This is my point. Either you did not READ the article you are declining and therefore the reasons don't make sense, or you are just picking random things to claim they are not listed, but they are.

You may have missed the definition, it was under the deceptively titled sub-section "Definition & Description".

See, I am trying to work with you here, but when you say things like that I just don't know what to say. So you didn't read the article, fail to understand the most basic definition that is the first one defined IN THE DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION SECTION, and claim it needs to be more in-depth. There are paragraphs outline the subject, with citations.

So it needs to be more in-depth than at least 3 peer-reviewed articles on the issue and it needs to mention "Shadow Footprints" in ALL of the linked articles, EVEN IF Shadow Footprints are a concept built on other concepts, all of which are listed and cited, because it is too complicated for you to understand, or you skimmed over the definition.

So how am I supposed to meet your standard?

This is where I just do not believe you are acting in Good faith. If you were, you would at least have seen that the linking of that article helps explain the concept of "Shadow Footprints" but is not, and never was, meant to be an article that mentioned the subject as it was written years before it was even defined.

See the problem yet? -Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to re-submit and get other opinions I am too dim and clearly can't follow your logic here. Theroadislong (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, it would just be nice if the person declining the article, read it.

Your answer previously prove you either did not read it, or did not understand it.

So I just lack confidence in your answer if you have been proven to have not read or understand the thing you are declining, with reasons that don't make sense.

Again, I was trying to work with you here but you seem unable or unwilling to defend your analysis, or when you do defend it, the defense is not congruent with the evidence and therefore is extremely confusing.

It is not my fault your reasons do not match what is in the article, you know that, right?

I didn't ask you to use the fact that Shadow Footprints isn't in an article about Shadow profiles, when the concept of Shadow Footprints is a combination of people shadow profiles and digital footprints, as defined in the article.

You, surprisingly, got a basic, fundamental point wrong when trying to explain yourself, so excuse me for not having confidence in your explanations.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I will recuse myself from further involvement, good luck with the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shadow Footprints (December 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bluethricecreamman was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shadow Footprints and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question

Hello, Kirkoconnell! I'm Timtrent. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

And left a review comment on the draft which I hope you will find to be of use to you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)