Jerryk50

Thanks for uploading Image:OTF knife GM04.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Learning as I go . . Jerryk50 (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jerry, Great work on the switchblade and terminology articles! I'm trying to start a project to work on all the cutlery related articles, to get them cohesive, sourced, etc and protected from the anti-knife coalition. If you want to participate, let it be known here:[1]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jerry, I'm an old time collector myself. Been at it over 30 years. I'm a Martial Artist, Marine, Admin on the largest Custom Knife Forum, a Knifemaker's Guild Member, and have been a Wiki editor for 2 years. Your article had nothing wrong factually, just the style it was written in was non-encyclopedic and more like an essay, personally, I liked it. ADDITIONALLY IT WAS UNREFERENCED. If you want to restore it, I suggest you get some references in there, don't refer to the pictures directly in the text and write it from a more neutral point of view.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

request for more detailed editing requirements . I see where you have posted generic editors flags, but you do not edit, and you do not specify details of error. Under first paragraph in Gravity knives. you say neutrality is disputed, but everything stated is common factual knowledge at Atlanta blade show.

Jerry, common knowledge, by whom? You and me? Maybe...maybe 100 other knife enthusiasists or military collectors. This encyclopedia is for the whole world to see, and I'll tell you, based on comments I've seen on other articles, most people know absolutely nothing about this hobby of ours.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please specify what you think is biased, Secondly, under mechanical, you flag "tone", Again, the paragraph is a clinical statement of facts, explaining illustration, in the best U.S.Government patent illustration format, no redundancy, no "I" or "We". I am not quite sure what you are flagging as a weasel word, but I beg you, rewrite it, don't purge it.

I did rewrite some of it and you put it back the way it was.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you can reference it, then it must be a copyright violation and removed.

I don't know what you're talking about, are you trying to be sarcastic or did you leave out a word or two?

Please note, Wikipedia is not just plagerism, lack of 100% reference is not justification for purging stuff.

It most certainly can be removed if there is no source.

There WILL be new never before published info found.

And it is not supposed to be placed here without a source. [2]

For Example, A knife, sold at a trade show as a gravity knife, is flat bed scanned image, so we know it exists as a fact.is no longer for sale in the US. taken off the market because it is an inertia knife. Cannot be called a true gravity knife by AKTI, Is and all of this has never been published in a book, HOW do you reference it?

Under wikis guidelines you cannot see the link above, it constitutes original research.

How do you tell people there are types of flick knives, very rare, other than the hollywood/McDonalds archtypical example. I have read the statement "no new research" and disagree that it is research. I believe it to be current common knowledge, So I declare, the very fact of a photo, makes it proof of existence, Is the verification required by Wikipedia.

I disagree. I'm sure Wiki's policy disagrees with this as well.

Next, under legal, the editor flag "tone", I ask you what is the correct whay(sic) to write in long hand, that there is a difference in opinion between collectors and lawyers without using examples of biased statements, and displaying them in opposition.

Write in a more passive voice, Jerry, this is an encyclopedia, not a Blog.

Finally, the flag, "neutrality of factual accuracy is disputed or biased," i say to this, How can the knife I am holding in my hand, be a disputed fact, or I ask what specifically is biased.

"Most recognizable" is factually disputed and biased. I would think of 5 or 6 other gravity knives before the German one, especially the knives I carried as a teenager.It's all in the wording.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If a statement that the planet pluto is no longer a planet is only held by american astronomers, is that a biased statement ?

It is to every other astronomer who does not hold that POV. We're talking about knives, here, not planets.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have been following your edits concerning knives, and did not change anything, because I did not want to "own" an article. But in your efforts to make the article conform to Wiki-standards, you purge info instead of rewriting it, that is not editing.

It most certainly is if there's no inline citations.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

In switchblades, you removed the line, "the first switchblade may be lost to history, or hiding in a museum of renaissance armor" I conceded and left that true statement out, ( even though I could have referenced quote taken from the ben meyers book, )

Jerry, if you can reference the quote, by all means reference it. I'll even help with the formatting. That's been my point from the beginning. I liked what you wrote, but did not like it's tone, it's nonencyclopedic...perfect for a magazine article, just not here is all.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

and you removed the fig.A, Fig.B references to the image, (which Wiki does not specifically prohibit.) Are you going to purge this type of patent illustration format from OTF knives, and Pantographic knife ?

Probably when I get to them, it's sloppy writing for this format.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Likewise, hidden release scale opening double action folding knives, that also can be opened manually is merely a type of button mechanism, not a third type of switchblade, and you can't list them all.

Well get in there and source it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

and why do you think its okay to make a point of fixing (adding Knives) to Kershaw, on a long list of american shops and think it's okay to list Frank (F.LLi.Beltrame) and AGA Campolin, but you delete Lucio Dibon (custom work, biggest known stiletto museum), and not mention AKC Beltrame or AB Colletarie, who also make stilettos.

Because I'm not a deletionist, Kershaw was going to be deleted so I fixed it. I'm actually surprised these articles have stayed under the radar for so long as is. I want to fix them and get them up to Featured article status. I'm looking forward to your help as you're obviously very knowledgeable. As for the other makers...if they do not even show up on a google search they will not be considered notable by a neutral third party. If mentioned in a book or article, cite the source.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just replyed to this, under user talk, with my IP number, but I lost it I'm having trouble finding all the correct talk pages, running out of time today, Jerryk50 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jerry, it's cool..I'll work with you, don't feel rushed or pressured, there's no deadline. We can fix this. You have a great start, it just needs some polish.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added no commercial links to the Switchblade article and no "clickable links", someone else must have done that and you're confused. I added the reference to the Greg Walker book and properly formatted yours. An editor made an edit after I did, removing a link that was there before I ever touched it.

I know, when I first started I found it frustrating, myself. Don't think of it as what "everyone knows", but what's been published. Go through your old knife references...pool that information together and that's how you write a great article.

You did a great job on Switchblade and I improved where I could, cut what was opinion, and added more sources, and plan on a few more. You're obviously a great source of information on knives, and I want to see more from you.

Google seems to be the litmus test for notability. It has nothing to do with selling on the internet, although I will concede the first 100 or so hits usually are "sale links". I think it sucks, but I don't make these rules. If AKTI says that...why not write "According to the American Knife and tool Institute, this is the most recognizable..." then cite where they state that?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:English knife GM49.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:English knife GM49.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:English knife GM49.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article Switchblade Collectors Terminology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

dicdef

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. F (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering if you have a higher-resolution of File:Jay-silverheels-01.jpg possibly from an original photo, or even just an earlier file since this looks like it may have been scaled down. (JPG transformations are lossy so even cropping the photo could deteriorate its quality.) DAVilla (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see from your contributions that you haven't edited since January, so I don't know if you're active anymore, but if you happen to see this note, would you please take a look at this on the talk page for this article? It's about some information which you added to the article which I removed because it had no supporting citation. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your upload of File:Coach-Gun-gm002.jpg 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) 15:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The file File:Jay-silverheels-01.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The file File:Ranger-Flash-k01.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The file File:Ranger-Flash-k02.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Jerryk50. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on File:Gravity knife GM02.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply