User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/11

WT:LINKLOVE, umm, no

I think that you misinterpret WT:LINKLOVE and its purpose. It does not sit alone among the policy and guidance, and looking to circumvent the blacklist is especially not meant to be the purpose of that guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited JournoList, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Candor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Professional courtesy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Profit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

AFD: Antisemitism in early Christianity

Someone removed the prod tag, so I set up an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in early Christianity--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just some friendly advice: It doesn't really do any good to try dragging editors into debates over their vote just because they voted Keep when you want them to vote Delete. People who pass through AfD for a minute or two, see what is there now and vote accordingly--no one likes to get badgered or dragged back for an argument that wastes time and just makes them bitter. It just clogs up the AfD and a lot of editors find such canvassing and badgering to be in poor taste. Place your vote (I notice you haven't voted yet), let other people place theirs. In a week or two, it will sort itself out--whether you argue with them or not. Let the lager yeast settle to the bottom of the beer barrel. OK? --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Rob Wyda

Nothing you have added meets GNG. We have nothing that says being a judge confers notability, and we have nothing that says military service confers notability. His personal anecdotes also don't make him notable. I could in fact make the case that all his local coverage was simply the result of publicity so he could retain an elected position.

However, all that aside, in the context of your comment, WP:NOTMEMORIAL means that we do not even consider the "grieving family" when looking at articles. Your argument is precisely not what Wikipedia's purpose is. Conversely, I'd say a 6.5 year-old article with lousy sources and no expansion is a prime candidate for AfD. If he was so important, where were you back then? Maybe, like me, you never noticed it until it was actually available a little more prominently. MSJapan (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rob Wyda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page District Judge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Guantanamo related articles

Greetings

The link you added to Jamil Ahmed Said Nassir is not an independent reliable source. Someone ported a snapshot of the then current version of this article to wikia. So it is a circular reference pointing back here. Sorry.

I am glad to have other people interested in working on the Guantanamo material. Realistically that work has to take into account the many {{afd}} on similar articles.

I don't know if I have introduced myself. I started almost all the articles on Guantanamo captives -- about 550 articles in the end. I started them mainly in 2006, when, frankly, the wikipedia's inclusion criteria was looser. So, they met the criteria, when I drafted them. There are about 2 dozen strong critics of my efforts out there, some of whom will say I have been a serial creator of articles that don't compliy with WP:BLP and other policies. I see that criticism as very unfair, as, without regard to whether the articles measure up to todays's standards, they measured up to the standards current when I started them.

In 2009 a contributor with a lot of energy came along, and devoted several thousand hours to the articles on this material. This should have been a great relief to me, as keeping those articles up those hundreds of articles to the current standards, as those standards grew more stringent, was going to be thousands of hours or work. Sadly, that person proved very hostile, and took pleasure in his success at impeding my every effort.

I think there are a couple of people interested in improving the coverage of this material. Assuming you are one of those people, can we discuss how best to do this within the time we have available to work on it? Could we:

1. Discuss how improved articles should look? I am not happy with the style I used in 2006.
2. Discuss which deleted or redirected articles would be the strongest candidates to restore to full article status?

There is a moribund wikiproject for terrorism. Perhaps this would be the best place to discuss this.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

At User:Geo Swan/Wittes breakdown I have information that can be plugged into restored articles on any captive who was still in custody back in 2008. Challengers to covering Guantanamo material started to define the intelligence summaries prepared by OARDEC as "primary sources". I still don't agree with this interpretation, as they were prepared by a whole separate agency than the intelligence agencies that interrogated the captives, or looked at the physical evidence. I made my case for the interpretation that, as compilations and summaries of the work of individual at other agencies those summaries were, by definition, secondary sources. I made my best case at the reliable sources noticeboard, and that argument was not accepted. So User:Geo Swan/Wittes breakdown is based on a 99 page academic paper where scholars did their analysis of the meaning of the allegations -- that paper is unquestionably a "secondary source".

As per above the question now is how best to use it in a way that satisfies everyone -- including those who have challenged these articles.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jack T. Chick. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute 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 Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have found a Oxford University Press work that identifies Jack Chick as being anti-Catholic. StAnselm doesn't have a leg to stand on.--216.31.124.219 (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing, including edit warring at Jack T. Chick and multiple categories; tendentious editing; and harassing other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you asked...

Since you asked "What did I ever do to you?" - the comment "You have to be a unique sort of insane" may have something to do with it. I appreciated your apology here, but I thought it was a bit rich reverting on the basis that I hadn't sufficiently responded to the discussion on Talk:Jack T. Chick. To make these sorts of edits immediately after coming out of a block is rather appalling. StAnselm (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Substing templates

Hi! Just wanted to remind you that when you use a welcome template on someone's talkpage, that you should always substitute the template. (For example, you should use{{subst:welcome}} rather than {{welcome}}.) Cheers, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Al-Ameriki tribe for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicholas Mevoli for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King of the Gypsies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English Travellers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

concern trolling

Please do not undo legitimate and consensus based edits, and please especially do not attempt to conceal your actions by calling such edits removal of concern trolling : eg [1] there was a broad-based consensus for this approach, and no-one has demonstrated that the broad community feels differently - and calling something like this 'trolling' is a misrepresentation and I consider it disruptive. If you really don't like that previous consensus , you're not alone, but the pathway has been laid out for you several times.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:StAnselm stalking

3 people have accused this user of stalking in the recent past. Since this is the case, and since this appears to be a habit with this user, do you think its a good idea for any of us 3 to seek further action against him? Pass a Method talk 23:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Walter John Raymond for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection status on Fallujah

It was not me who initiated the semi-protect. I merely reverted back to the original status after pending changes trial ended. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Why should you ask me when it wasn't me who imposed it in the first place? The ball isn't on my court (and never was) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism category and Jack Chick

Kendrick7, I share your consternation about not putting Chick in the Anti-Catholic category. Is water wet? Is Hitler an antisemite? Is Jack Chick anti-Catholic? I think the other editors are trying to refer you to this discussion from two years ago: CfD: Bias categories. If you haven't read it through yet, I think you ought to. I've been analyzing it and have some observations I will share with you. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

CfD Bias categories 2011 February 9

Here are my comments on the CfD:

1) The proposer, Roscelese, did not propose banning the adding of individuals, organizations, media, etc. from the bias categories. Her proposal simply asked for consensus on making the bias categories uniform by taking a "unified approach" to them.

2) Roscelese herself does not !vote in favor of not listing "individuals, orgs, etc.".

3) Eighteen editors expressed an opinion on the "unified approach" proposal: Eleven supporting—Roscelese, CarolMooreDC, Good Ol'factory, dmcq, Kaldari, Dezidor, Joe Decker, Nick Levinson, Moni3, Geometry guy and SandyGeorgia; Seven opposing—Avi, Debresser, Rainbowofpeace, Gnangarra, Jayjg, Jack Cox and Ricardianman.

4) Of the eleven supporting !votes, six also supported banning individuals, orgs, etc., from the bias categories: CaroleMooreDC, Good Ol'factory, and Dezidor explicitly, and Nick Levinson, Moni3, and SandyGeorgia by recommending that the bias categories be deleted entirely. (Of the seven oppose !votes, none support banning individuals & orgs, etc.)

5) (The support !vote of dmcq is ambiguous: he says he approves of banning individuals, but appreciates having a "category of people convicted of anti-homosexual crimes".)

6) If you include the !vote of dmcq, there are seven !votes that support not naming individuals, orgs, etc., in bias categories.

7) Seven divided by eighteen is 39%, not even a simple majority of the !vote.

8) The finding by the closer, Timrollpickering, of "Consensus for a unified approach to these categories" is supportable—of eighteen !votes, eleven supported a "unified approach" (consistency is a good thing, right?).

9) The finding by the closer, Timrollpickering, of "most support to ban individuals & organisations", is manifestly incorrect and false—only six (or seven) out of eighteen editors expressed such support.

10) Any action taken on the basis of this manifestly erroneous claim of consensus (i.e. "most support to ban individuals & organisations") is surely invalid.

11) In addition, the closing admin had no warrant to make a determination on anything but the question posed by Roscelese: whether to take a unified approach to bias categories (and not on how to make the bias categories uniform). --71.178.50.222 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

it's an interesting analysis but it's also water long under the bridge, and current practice has aligned (as well as the fact that participants did not seem to dispute the closure at the time.) consensus can change, so I suggest, as I have for months, that you work on a neutrally worded RFC and get a new consensus established. For example, perhaps anti-religion cats can be treated differently? And is there a nazi-exceptionalism? as no-one would dare remove Hitler from the antisemitism category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in here, Obiwan; I noticed that you were one of the players on this issue. Now that you know there was no consensus on individuals and organizations, please begin removing the related "instructions" language from the tops of the bias category pages. Thanks! PS: Current practice has not aligned—there are still many, many people and organizations listed in bias categories. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest against that. The consensus was as written by the admin; even though many did not explicitly state it, the intent in voting "support unified approach" was in almost all cases to support removal of people and organizations, and many other CFDs, again and again, have deleted categories that so label people (eg. Anti-semitic people, racist organizations, etc). I can point to at least a dozen other cats that have been deleted. This is a long-standing consensus to not have these sorts of categories, and the fact that some people have filtered in that shouldn't be there just means people haven't done the cleanup. Rather than go around changing cats, the proper course of action is a new RFC. I'd be happy to help draft it, just start a draft somewhere, but begin with - what is the question? FWIW, I re-read that discussion, and I think the close was correct. It's not just about numbers, it's also about strength of argument, and I think the arguments to keep people and orgs out were stronger.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: so he can weigh in with thoughts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That there was consensus for a "unified approach" is correct—that was the question being decided. That there was a consensus about "individuals & orgs, etc" is incorrect on two counts: 1) that wasn't the question the proposer asked to be decided, and 2) six or seven out of eighteen !votes does not equate to "most support to ban individuals & organisations". So, in my opinion, Timrollpickering improperly found consensus (7/18!) on a question that wasn't even proposed. (I don't believe he used "strength of argument" to justify his conclusions.) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's always interesting when the sudden voices of support for controversial actions come from IPs... I've addressed this matter more than once when Kendrick's brought it up [2] [3] and don't intend to keep on doing so in every new forum it's raised in so I'll just address the specific new points raised and the way forward.

A conformity nomination is by definition seeking to set a common standard not just seeking agreement that there should be one - that's how every other conformity nomination I've been involved with at CFD, whether as nominator, commenter or closer, has gone. That particular discussion's nomination explicitly ends with "You've got to pick one standard or another." so the claim the discussion had no power to make that decision is false. Discussions are not votes but discussions and do take in wider policies and trends.

Now not everyone may be happy with the outcome. But there are straightforward ways to handle it. This is not by having one or two individuals trying to rewrite the determined outcome and impose their preferred one, as that just leads to the anarchic edit warring that consensus decisions seek to avoid. Rather either the CFD can be taken to review (though at three years' distance it's invariably accumulated the additional weight of little challenged practice) or a new discussion can be initiated to see if consensus has changed since then. I find it telling that in all the months since Kendrick first raised this there has been no attempt to either review or rediscuss the consensus, just attempts to bypass it. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that Roscelese (the nominator), in making the comment "You've got to pick one standard or another", was directing you, Timroll, to personally decide what that standard would be (lol). If the CfD procedure is as loosey-goosey as you describe, it needs to be tightened up. Isn't it difficult enough to determine consensus when the question discussed is clearly framed? Yet, if I understand you, it is routine to determine consensus on questions that haven't even been asked! (IMHO, admins should only determine consensus on the specific question posed.) I understand Kendrick7's frustration—he has a bigot and a category to put him in but he's prevented because someone decided that you cannot put bigots in the bigotry category. Frustration is not, however, an excuse for disruption, and I hope Kendrick7 avails himself of the avenues for redress that you have indicated. As regards the accumulated "additional weight of little challenged practice", Roscelese a few months ago said: "the result of the discussion is being completely disregarded for some categories ... and enforced for others, leaving us in exactly the same position in which we began", so, maybe it's time for a review and re-think. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Bolding added. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

71, your critiques of Tim's closing are best left for a deletion review... but, we aren't going to do one, because it happened so long ago there's no point rehashing a 3 year old discussion - it would make a ton more sense to just start a new discussion. Secondly, Kendrick's problem of "I have a bigot and I need to categorize him" is at the root of the problem, because at the time of the CFD, it was not acceptable to categorize people as homophobes but it was perfectly fine to call them anti-semites - so some bigots were more equal than others. It's also problematic to use categories to label people in that way, because it's inherently subjective, and don't say "we go by sources", as sources can disagree, and it's still a question of degree. Is Tutu an anti-semite in the same way Hitler was? Obviously not, but what's the threshold? It's much easier to deal with different sources' interpretations of bigotry in the article text, vs a category which is all-or-nothing, black or white, in or out. As to your other point, it's not surprising that the result is disregarded, anyone can add to a category, and it's hard to monitor membership in a category - you have to watch the recent changes in the category (and that only shows you who has been added, it doesn't show who has been removed). However, when I've cleaned up such cats in the past, there hasn't been much resistance. Nonetheless, I have maintained, in every conversation on this issue, that there would be no problem in doing a new RFC, especially now it's 3 years later - it remains for those who are unhappy with the status quo to put such an RFC together, and so far no-one has felt it worth their while. Maybe you will prove me wrong. You'll also need to respect the consensus that arises from that, and not continue a 1-man-war against the consensus established as kendrick has been doing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I won't be the one to prove you wrong—I only got interested because I understand "where Kendrick is coming from". I had never read a CfD before this one and hadn't paid much attention to Categories; but thanks to your and Timroll's responses, I now know a lot more about how it works. You'll agree with me that it's fortunate that what I've learned convinces me to stay further away from Category issues than I had before (lol). Maybe Kendrick and Roscelese will get together and prove you wrong. Anyway, thanks to you and Timrollpickering for your thoughtful responses. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Aha. Well, CFD and categories is a rather arcane area of wikipedia with its own set of rules. For example, WP:OSE is actually a good argument for categories, since consistency in the tree is appreciated, and many things which are eminently sourceable and verifiably true are nonetheless not acceptable as categories - the purpose is to provide navigation and grouping of like topics, while managing maintainability. This is why the vast majority of potential category intersections and "true statements about object X" do not exist as categories. There are infinitely many more things that are true than those which we accept as categories, and the black/white and unsourced nature of category membership (and difficulty in monitoring same) makes them tricky. Finally, if that's the only CFD you've read, don't judge CFD on that alone - that was a very special CFD, and the outcome was different than the majority of CFDs, which normally just say "keep" or "delete" or "merge" - in this case, the question was about really about contents, and it was brought to CFD (the discussion could have been held elsewhere, and if we do it again, I suggest we do hold the discussion outside of CFD, but its not a big deal either way). In any case, that particular discussion is in no way representative of standard CFDs - normally extremely problematic categories are simply deleted, but in this case we can't just delete "Racism" as a category, we just have to patrol it instead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the Pope Catholic?

I haven't read the whole discussion above yet, but Anon 71 is putting words into my mouth. My issue isn't with bigotry at all. My issue is with equating holding a theological belief with bigotry. "Anti-" has a long standing theological meaning; e.g. anti-Marcionism[4] is simply a theology which rejects Marcionism.

A better example might be Category:Anti-Gnosticism. Gnosticism is a more or less forgotten theology now, but was a huge deal a millennium and a half ago. Which means it didn't rank high enough on anyone's radar to actually get thrown in with this CFD.

Now, anti-Gnosticism surely got people killed. But is it bigotry? Of course not. Just because some people kill in the name of an idea doesn't make anyone holding that idea an evil person. After all anti-Communism probably killed more people in the Vietnam War than were even shuffling around the whole Mediterranean basin back then. Would anyone blanch at the project putting LBJ or, later, Ronald Reagan in Category:Anti-communists? Again, of course not.

And especially with ancient theology, who got there first is almost an accident of history. In some parallel universe where Marcion actually taught the opposite as he did over here, and a movement came along opposing this real life Anti-Marcion (I suppose we'd have to call them anti-anti-Marcionites), would the opposite side then suddenly become the "bigots"? Are we really just cheerleaders for whomever got there first?

And it gets worse! Because had Category:anti-Gnosticism made the list, then we couldn't include any "allegedly" anti-Gnostic person or organisation in the category. But, of course, Catholicism still regards Gnosticism as a heresy. So everyone who is Catholic -- at least especially the higher ups you should have to admit -- is an anti-Gnostic. So we'd have to purge those.

But it's only a hop, skip, and a jump from that reasoning to say we can't even include anyone in Category:Catholicism. The Catholic faith is decidedly opposed to the Gnostic faith.

Which means we've basically concluded that the Pope isn't Catholic. Bravo. Yay, a true victory for 'conformity'!

If you think that's just irrelevant speculation, read from paragraph 3 again with the words "Central Europe" in place of "Mediterranean basin" and "Protestant" in place of the word "Gnostic" and notice the argument still holds, perhaps even more so.

But, OK. My next step is to re-list the anti-Theology categories in a new WP:CfD. I'm busy in real life, but it will come around soon. My only real fear is that the community won't appreciate theology as much as I do! -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

you seem to be suggesting that anti-Catholicism is closer to anti-communism than it is to anti-semitism. In practice we seem to have drawn the line there - it is acceptable to label people as anti-communist or anti-fascist, likely because those labels themselves were embraced by those who held them and are not considered pejorative, while calling someone anti-Muslim or anti-catholic or anti-Semitic is seen as pejorative and most who held such views would not so label themselves. Id suggest you start a discuss at the bias WikiProject to formulate a new neutral rFC and it is possible you could make the case that certain anti-religion cats should be treated differently and that things like Category:Anti-Catholic organizations should be kept and expanded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I know not seems. I'd actually suggest anti-Catholicism and anti-Communism are closer to Category:antimatter than they are to Category:anti-Semitism. In practice, we have not drawn the line there, hence the current existence, for now, of Category:Anti-Catholic organizations. You are amongst those running around trying to draw these new lines and create new practices. Oh, that evil anti-matter, why does it hate matter so?

But thanks for the invite to take this dispute to a forum where some cabal of editors are probably hippy-dippy paranoid about "bias". If only because reminds my of my grandmother's favorite poem ;-) -- Kendrick7^talk 04:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Jack T. Chick. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrats sure do love 'plating the regs. Have no fear, I'm currently updating WP:CFD to allow this discussion to move forward. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked from editing and banned from editing Jack T. Chick

Your edits to Jack T. Chick are disruptive, clearly constitute edit warring and are violations of the biographies of living persons policy. Due to your prior history of BLP violations for which you were indefinitely blocked then unblocked with a warning about BLP and your history of editing warring on Jack T. Chick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) you are subject to the following sanctions in accordance with this ruling of the Arbitration Committee:

• Blocked for 1 month.
• Indefinitely banned from making any edit related to Jack T. Chick (including editing the article and talk page) anywhere on Wikipedia for any reason except to seek clarification of or to appeal this ban.

You may appeal this restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, if you do I suggest using this template. You may also appeal this sanction to me on my talk page in no less than 6 months from this date. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It serves no purpose to block me from editing in general while also giving me a ban from editing the article which is in dispute. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. -- Kendrick7^talk 8:04 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, this is a sanction placed for the enforcement of the WP:BLPBAN ruling by ArbCom, and so may only be overturned by the appeal methods relevant to that.

While I'm here, re "Blocks are not meant to be punitive", this block is clearly preventive. Given your extensive history of edit-warring over and problematic editing of BLPs, and your matching block log, I personally think Callanecc is actually putting Wikipedia at unnecessary risk by blocking you for only one month instead of indef. Zad68 13:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is the first I'm hearing that there is even a WP:BLP issue in play here. It's no more a a BLP violation to point out that Jack Chick is anti-Catholicism than it would be to point out that Newt Gingrich is anti-Communism; if you scroll up I've laid that point out in some detail. It's a clear violation of the ArbCom ruling to ban an editor without any warning or discussion. I've repeatedly implored User:StAnselm to build consensus for his change. He's repeatedly ignored having the discussion, as per WP:BRD, until just now when he decided to crow about me being blocked.[5] I'm not the only editor who has been reverting this change.[6][7][8] I've pro-actively sought out the help of other editors in resolving our dispute here and here. I fail to understand what else I could have done but revert him again under the circumstances. -- Kendrick7^talk 14:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have already been told of the only appropriate ways you can appeal this block. You are therefore wasting everyone's time repeating unblock requests that are procedurally impossible to acccept. If you persist, your talk page access will be revoked. On a substantive note, the block and the ban seem absolutely justified given your history, your recent edits, and your comments on the Jack Chick talk page. The fact that in the face of all this evidence you say things like "I fail to understand what else I could have done but revert him again under the circumstances" confirms that the sanctions are justified and preventative. Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Re: Categories for Discussion?

Hey, @Fuhghettaboutit::

Thank you for your considerate and thoughtful reply.[9] Although I am currently indisposed, when I file the RFC next month, I will absolutely take all of your advice to heart.

And especially, when someone from New Jersey tells a Bostonian that he's been acting a little too passionately about something, it does make this Bostonian sit up and listen! -- Kendrick7^talk 03:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Early 20th century sheriff bios

Heya,

So, by your logic, anyone who did something should be put in Wikipedia? You are aware that the information needed on these individuals is located on the main essay page.

Also, it appears you have been blocked for a month for violating BLP so, I think my point has been validated.

Regards, Yanksox (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1929 by country

The article 1929 by country has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not needed due to links in article already appearing in the 1929 by country category

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1929 in the sciences

The article 1929 in the sciences has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not needed due to the links in the article already included in the 1929 in science category

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pope Gregory I and Judaism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:Anti-Judaism]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cfv full

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —PC-XT+ 04:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Socks

You might want to peruse WP:DENY MarnetteD|Talk 04:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead for Israeli-Lebanese conflict

Hi. I have mentioned some issues with the lead for Israeli–Lebanese conflict on the talk page. As far as I can make out from the history and comments on the talk page, it seems you were a major contributor to the lead. If you could participate, it would be good. Thanks. Kingsindian (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User;Unscintillating

Did you create this cross-namespace redirect only to make a joke about mulligans? Anyway, I've tagged it for speedy deletion.--Atlan (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Knock it off with the strawmen

You have repeatedly made the nonsensical claim that the standing position on bias categories means that somehow Wikipedia has declared that no individual has ever held discriminatory views or practiced discrimination. This is not the case and you know it. It is merely the case that a decision has been taken to not categorise people and groups as such. Not being listed in a category does not mean someone isn't something. The phrasing in edit summaries like this is a deliberate misrepresentation and unhelpful. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are quibbling;[10] it always seemed to me that the position of the editors crying "bias" was that categorization does harm somehow, even, apparently, to the ghost of Hitler. Having joined the choir for the purposes of enacting your directive now myself, after lo these many years, if we don't think categorization is also categorical then why is it "bias"? Nevertheless, please forgive the zealotry of a new convert. Since you offered no positive guidance, I'll try to come up with another wording. On the bright side, not a single person has reverted my purging of Category:antisemitism so far. So: take your administrative victory in stride, like that time King Solomon cut that baby in half....

If however, you at last suspect that you maybe screwed up that WP:CfD close, don't lash out at me. You can more or less fix all this by clicking your heels together. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's telling that you always wheel out the Hitler example rather than actually address the rather more contentious cases people have seous concerns about and feel that a clear dividing line can't be drawn. Perhaps if you did address these you'd get more traction. I think I closed the CFD as well as one can and since nearly three and a half years later there's been no review of it, just one editor trying to impose their own view against consensus and forum shopping to pick off whatever they can, then it's held up reasonably well. Your disruptive approach on this whole matter has concerned many, hence you've had more than one block as a result, and has not got you anywhere. People have said multiple times that the ways forward are either a DRV if you dispute the existanc of a consensus, a new CFD discussion to change it or a general RFC covering all the bias categories. But for some reason you think just misusing "BURO" gives you a pass to ignore what you don't like. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, we really do need to fix this. As it stands it's a mess. We need to do something constructive. Yes, misusing bias categories is bad. Not allowing us to use an antisemitism category for Hitler is however ridiculous. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, [11] a single person has reverted you. I noticed your actions a while ago, and since I concluded that you were deliberately trying to whip up opposition to the policy you dislike by adopting a "fundamentalist" approach in support of it, I chose not to revert. My own view is that categories are a form of index designed to give people access to relevant articles. The system is inherently problematic. I'm not sure that it's helpful to anyone to label Hitler as an anti-semite, but that's only because we all know he was. Book such as the Protocols and the Myth of the 20th Century should certainly be included. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

I really appreciate it. I'd been rather hurt and worn out by certain things on wikipedia, and so I left for a couple of months. I've come back in very much a part-time, occasional, capacity. I saw the RfC at Category talk:Antisemitism, but in my new mode of editing, I don't intend to participate in those sort of discussions. StAnselm (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

antisemitism

I suppose I might be dense, but I can't see why a decision not to include antisemitism as a category in articles on individuals or groups should result in the removal of the category from antisemitic books. But I'd be happy to hear your rationale! - Nunh-huh 15:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition, please clarify "per closure of recent RfC, no person or group can be categorized as anti-Semitic". The RFC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Antisemitism#RFC_on_purging_individuals_and_groups) conclusion, in bold, is "there is no consensus for changing the instructions". The category itself states "This category is for issues relating to antisemitism. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic." You have removed the category from books that are clearly anti-Semitic, and historians have labeled them as such not just alleged it. Clarification for the mass removal would be appreciated.165.166.215.220 (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm coping as well as I can with the result of the RFC, which I promised to abide by. The language at Category:antisemitism would exclude labeling books as anti-Semitic, since books are quite clearly media. By all means, if you don't like the existing consensus, voice your concerns on the talk page per WP:CCC. I have been against this policy since the moment I learned about it, and it does you no good to preach to the choir. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, clearly a policy under which Adolf Hitler is not classified as antisemitic is ridiculous. The idea that all "anti-something" classifications are a priori identical and therefore must be treated in a single policy is also ridiculous. Best of luck trying to bring reason to "categories" but alas I fear that battle was lost shortly after they were implemented. Perhaps a note to the New York Times would be a better way of illuminating our inability to clearly state facts here rather than mass editing articles into compliance with a policy with which you disagree. They do like their Wikipedia stories. Your choice, of course. :) - Nunh-huh 01:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't envision myself bringing shame upon the project in such a manner. Wikipedia tends to be self-correcting. Eventually. (Alas I've only been mentioned in a Wikipedia story once.) If, as a result of carrying the existing policy, reaffirmed by the RfC, out, more sane people like you show up, that is hardly something I could have foreseen. Still, FWIW, I am hardly doing anything en masse: the RFC closed two whole weeks ago. Per WP:TIND I have just been taking bites at the apple. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, let me know when the next attempt at sanity occurs and I'll be glad to stop by and !not vote :) - Nunh-huh 17:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically, your suggestion is not allowed per WP:CANVAS. But I can't stop you from watchlisting the category talk page. :) -- Kendrick7^talk 03:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Category antisemitism and category Antisemitism in the United States

As Category talk:Antisemitism in the United States has a more recent RfC than 'rules' set at a 2011 CFD, endorsed by the recent RfC, and was closed with "closing per request over at WP:ANRFC. There is consensus not to remove or specifically exclude all BLP's from this category. As long as WP:BURDEN is met, and the sources are all reliable etc etc., they can be included in this, and other similar, categories. While there are concerns about people being mis-labelled, as long as all relevent BLP guidelines are followed, there shouldn't be an issue. --Mdann52talk to me! 4:39 pm, 12 June 2014" it appears to me that the recent RfC can't override that specific decision. Comment? Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the RfC which closed ~2 weeks ago is more recent than May. I don't understand where nationalism comes into play on this topic. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matt Dehart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asylum. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adolf Hitler. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to emphasize or underline the above warning, after seeing the long list of your contributions, removing the antisemitism category despite the RFC closing with no consensus to do what you are doing. I noticed your removal at Metapedia which is notably antisemitic. Please stop removing the categories which are accurate, relevant and worthy of the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Hi there, as a recent editor of the page in question, you may wish to contribute to the discussions: ==Merge discussion for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority ==

An article that you have been involved in editing, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. prat (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC) prat (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Time

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Time for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 18:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Palestine page reverts

The maps on Palestine page are inappropriate. There is no historical evidence that Palestine's borders go beyond the Jordan river. Edom and the Jewish migrations through Sihon and Bashan (where the Jordanian populations were subjected to genocide) do not count. Nor does Mandate Palestine as it was a catch-all term that was similar to the Syrian Mandate and each mandate resulted in the formation of two distinct countries.Astari5 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon of Trent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sock

It actually is a reason to remove it, but seeing how you think it's "good work" I will let it stay. Have a nice day. AcidSnow (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Beloat / Joseph Merill Merge

Greetings:

Sorry I am about 9 months late to the party. I think your stance on the matter is not aligned with current Wikipedia guidelines.

Either way, I encourage you to reconsider your position. If you like, we can take this to the community at large for their input via proposed mergers.

Regards, Yanksox (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy

Your revert was a 1RR violation and too blatant for me to ignore. Self revert please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)