User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/4

Samuel Krauss

A tag has been placed on Samuel Krauss, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Selket ^Talk 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Better?

sorry, I orphaned that stub on Samuel Krauss. Added more sources. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is better, it is no longer under consideration for speedy deletion. It has now been nominated for deletion under the standard procedure. You should comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Krauss. After five days of discussion an administrator will look over the comments and determine whether there is a consensus to delete it. I just voted keep. --Selket ^Talk 04:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian Mysticism

You added a fact template to the above-referenced article concerning a statement in the introduction concerning Christian belief and indicated in your edit summary that you do not find the statement "necessarily true". Would you be so kind as to elaborate on the article's talk page? Is your concern about Christian belief concerning the possibility of experiencing God directly? --Midnite Critic 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, no time, but could you change the pope article again? Thx. Hig (german wiki)

Essjay controversy lead

Fine, write something sensical and correct. The lead you're reverting to isn't pertinent and actually isn't even English. (→Netscott) 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about adding to the talk page... I retract my statement. Please accept my apology for it. (→Netscott) 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes you can help me

Jayjg has blocked the articles on Kurt Nimmo and the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair after an edit war between me an Isarig. My suspicious nature makes me think that it was at the behest of Isarig. Isarig got Slimvirgin to ban me a few days ago for 24 hours because I re-added the simlarities between Dershowitz's book and Joan peters book From Time Immemorial. It came from Finkelstein's own website and has been in the article for a long time until recently, but Isarig lied and said it was my own personal research.

As for the article on Kurt Nimmo, it is simply slander to call him a Holocaust Denier. If you go his blog and Type "Holocaust" in the search engine you will see numerous instance where he acknowledges the Holocaust. The whole controversy stems from him saying in a blog entry on David Irving going to jail he used the words "Discredited" and "Gas Chambers" next to each other. Nimmo himself has stated on the discussion page that he didn't mean the word discredited as in "didn't happen" he meant in the sense of "Cause to be doubted". That doesn't make him a Holocaust Denier.

Is there any way you can talk to Jayjg or someone else and get the articles unblocked.annoynmous 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy AFD

An AFD on this article was only closed yesterday.... -- Kendrick7^talk 00:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was renamed so there was no way for me to know... In any case a non-consensus can be challenged at any point. -- Cat ^chi? 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

why not? theyre famous to me

It happens...

to the best of us. I really like the current version of Ryan Jordan right now... it reads correctly imho. (→Netscott) 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Palestine

Should not the map caption read rather:

"The Holy land, or Palestine, showing not only the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel in which the 12 tribes have been distinguished, but also the placement of the same in diverse ages having been made as indicated in the Sacred Pages. A geographic sheet (i.e, a map) newly adorned (by means of) the work and study of Tobias Conrad Lotter, Geographer. Augusburg, Germany, 1759."HarvardOxon 04:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have met difficulty in downloading the high-definition image and cannot otherwise read all the text in question. If you transcribe it for me, I can give some help for translating.

And, "by the way" (to use your own expression), I give you permission to archive my Talk page for me. Just now I don't have the urge to find out how to do it. Lima 05:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. aetas, aetatis, f., means "age" - in the sense of age of a person, or a part of life ("the age of youth"), or age as an epoch or era. Where are you getting "location" from this?HarvardOxon 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with my Internet connection has been solved. I propose the following translation. The differences from HarvardOxon's translation are really a matter of style.

The Holy Land or Palestine, showing not only the ancient Kingdoms of Judah and Israel divided into their twelve tribes, but also variations in their situation (literally, "their situation at different periods", doubtless a reference to the names of non-Israelite kingdoms overlapping some parts) and events mentioned in Sacred Scripture (obviously, not the events themselves but rather places connected with the events).

Newly designed map drawn and researched by Tobias Conrad Lotter, Geographer.

Augsburg, 1759.

By the way, my proposal to change back to "Papal Oath" seems to be attracting no attention. So it looks, after all, as if you will win. No hard feelings, I hope. Lima 15:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The differences in translations are not style, but how close to what the text actually says you are. Yes, you get the gist of it, but its not what the text actually says. HarvardOxon 16:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, and must therefore regretfully withdraw what, out of politeness, I said about the differences being a matter of style. "Conditio" (in better Latin, "condicio") is not "placement" (as if the kingdoms moved from one location to another!). "Diverse" is too strong a term to use for "diversis" (different). "Sacrae Paginae" is a good way to refer to Sacred Scripture in Latin, but "Sacred Pages" is simply not used in that sense in English. "Having been made" is, in the context, a mistranslation of "facta", which here literally means "the things done", i.e. the deeds, the events, having exactly the same sense as in the Vulgate translation of Psalm 94:9/93:10 ("adnuntiaverunt opera Dei et facta eius intellexerunt"). What, according to the HO translation, is supposed to have been made? It must be something that grammatically is either feminine singular or neuter plural. So it must be either "Terra Sancta sive Palaestina" or else "Regna vetera Iuda et Israel" (and why choose one rather than the other?). Is the map supposed to show us that these were made? The Latin text speaks of the "facta indicata" (the deeds or events indicated) - no need to insert an "as" ("made as indicated") that has no basis in the Latin. ...

A machine translation could perhaps do as good a job as what is presented above as telling "what the text actually says", and it would not have added "Germany". I am sorry I revisited this page. I will not return. Lima 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo

Could you please come to the talk page. It's gotten pretty bad between me and Isarig. I've laid out a suggestion as how you could help the two of us to come to a consensus.

Also, as it seems that Isarig is a little thin skinned so I don't soubt that he'll try again to get me banned agai. If that happens could you speak up for me and stop it from happening. I'd really appreciate itannoynmous 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bogus Warnigns

Please do no post bogus warnings on my Talk page. I have not attcked you or User:anonymous and I resent you allegation that I have. WP:NPA clearly states "you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page." Isarig 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am well familiar with policy, thank you very much. Please stop trolling on my user page, and do NOT reinsert your bogus warnigns which I have removed. Isarig 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was simply making an observation that I feel I'm untitled too. Isarig's history is well known and his attempts to bias articles on wikipedia dealing with Israel. I should not have to deal with being threatened because Isarig got his feelings hurt.annoynmous 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So let me correct you: on WP, you are not entitled to make personal observations impuning the motives of editors, no matter how well justified you happen to believe they are. You make make observations only on edits, not editors. I will not warn you any further, but will take action to prevent this if it happens again Isarig 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you or have you not edited a lot of articles dealing with Israel. Have you not been banned from certain articles for trying to bias them. I have not accused you of vandalism or anything of that nature, just that your trying to bias the article. We all have biases, including me. It's part of being human. I'm not going to take intimidation lying down. This type of bullying serves in my mind as an indirect threat to shut me out of the debate. I don't think I should be banned because I damaged your pride.annoynmous 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ministry of Truth (film)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ministry of Truth (film), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. SkierRMH 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I'm going to speedy it as unsourced/non-notable. SkierRMH 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mar Zutra

Please see my remarks at Talk:Exilarch#Mar Zutra. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay screenshot

I've still got the tool, but I can't find the link you're referring to. I've been busy in real life for the last week or so, and will probably continue to be busy at least until Sunday — but if you give me the link I can make an image from the web page, and upload it. I'd actually taken Essjay controversy off my watchlist, because I didn't have the energy or inclination to fight there. I'll provide the image for you, but if others feel that it's inappropriate for the article I don't think I'm going to push for it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The image is at Image:User-Essjay.png, but I'm slightly concerned that if it's not used in any pages Orphanbot will tag it for deletion. You may want to add it to something in your userspace just to keep that from happening. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jacob van Hoogstraten

Err, you're right. How do I remove a redirect? JASpencer 08:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. JASpencer 08:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignatz Lichtenstein

Hello,

Thank you for the time to respond to your Original Research claim. I have posted a brief response on the talk page. I'm a little busy at the moment, so it's a bit short and to the point. If you need any additional facts on this matter just let me know and I'll be happy to provide them. Thanks. —Wikijeff 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just appreciate you asking first and reverting later! In case you're interested, I have a project on Wikisource for the preservation of the writings of Messianic Jews. Ignatz Lichtenstein among them. Feel free to visit, and contribute to Salvation of Israel Project if you're interested in other writings of Messianic Jews. —Wikijeff 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2006–2007 Lebanese political protests‎

Hi Kendrick7. I noticed you recently updated this article, changing all of the tenses to the past; I'm curious why. As far as I know, the sit-ins are still happening in downtown Beirut, and the government ministers haven't returned to their positions. — George Saliba ^[talk] 06:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

An out-of-date article, very much in need of an update, doesn't mean that an event has ended... — George Saliba ^[talk] 06:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Also might want to check out this article, dated today; the crisis or protests or whatever aren't over, just stuck in stalemate. — George Saliba ^[talk] 06:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that the article uses the term "crisis." I think this is preferable to the term "protests" you moved the article to, since there were a few couple protests, and a series of sit-ins, but both were part of a larger political crisis threatening the legitimacy of the Lebanese government. — George Saliba ^[talk] 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the 2007 being preferable to present mind you, just not the "crisis" to "protests," and the change of tense obviously. — George Saliba ^[talk] 06:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... the article is titled "Deadlock in Lebanon crisis", and states "Lebanon is facing its worst crisis since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war." It's not a big deal, as the article keeps bouncing around anyways. Personally I'm just waiting til it works itself out before touching the article too much. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No link to archive?

A long time ago you archived this, but a link to the archive never appeared on the main page Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's a mistake, feel free to fix it. -- Beland 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

question

I see that you removed that section from the talk page.[1] I'd still appreciate it if you revert Gatoclass if he tries to remove this info you yourself have found to be valid. I don't want to be blocked for 3RR, and you seem to recognize the content is valid. Thanks, --Urthogie 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, do you support my idea of giving Carter's book its own section by the way? Deserves deep discussion, methinks.--Urthogie 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I dknow if it counts as a POVFORK if its just part of the article. Maybe you're right.--Urthogie 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I made a wholesale reversion rather than partial is because he is moving specific criticisms to the "Criticism" section, which is meant only for general criticisms of the allegation. See the talk page for my logic. I think you my actually agree.--Urthogie 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the removing of the charged "dictator".--Urthogie 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicts in Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

It seems to have escaped Urthogie that I did three things (1) fixed a bug in the "Overview" section (present since before the freeze -- nobody reads the paragraph or looks at the ref section?); (2) Moved Ostroff's crit to where it belongs, revising it to match style and improving the ref (tho it could be better wikified); and (3) moving A-M to where I think it goes. He undid all three to get at the third and your interpolated edits on Amin have made it impossible to correct him on the first two. Not a complaint. I gotta go to work, so...could you fix (1) and, if you agree, restore (2)? Thanks. Andyvphil 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (3) -- well, the current version isn't a bad compromise; having only just gotten this alleged "majority view" out of the lead, keeping A&M somewhere near the top isn't bad. I don't feel this is criticism per se. I don't like the idea of leading off with a quote farm -- sooner or later someone will want to alphabetize them and then find a white supremacist baby killer named "Aaron Aarvark" etc. and it'll just get messy. (2) eh... there's been edit warring over this before -- does a rebuttable to Tutu belong immmediately after Tutu or in the criticism section? -- I do prefer the latter but you'll just have to fight your own battle here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear you about the stamp collection organization of quotes. It's not alphabetical, but the equivalent to "Aaron Aardvark" at Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is putting the praise first. If you try reading it as an article your eyes glaze over long before you reach any pithy comments on Carter's book... What I'd really like to see is a historical lineage of the usage... beginning with Malik? ... just to establish the subject. Then another section on crit of the usage. It's not as if someone criticizing Carter won't make points applicable to Tutu... If you want A-M ahead of the crit, I don't mind. It's just odd that they should have a section to themselves (misleadingly titled "other views") and then another section basically to themselves (and David Duke?!?) misleadingly titled "Overview"... I forgot that another of the things I did was (4)correcting the name of Carter's book. Urthogie reverted that correction again today. Apparently he doesn't actually look at the edit comments, somehow. Anyway, I see he's got a 48 hour block. Andyvphil 23:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User link

Thanks man, I've only been with Wiki for like a month so i don't have the basics yet.Ahmad Husseini 03:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check it again, can I vote for 2 thnigs? Ahmad Husseini 03:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: hidden redirects

Sorry, I don't know what do you mean.. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a clarifying now on the 2006 Lebanon War talk page. It really wasn't an intention making a misleading. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

War of 1812? lol. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

you were right. please next time give a pointer?

I replaced the cite with the "citation needed" only so as not to have the dead link there while I looked for a replacement. I did not realize that this was considered bad form. It would have been nice if you could have pointed me to this. It took me about five minutes to find that. :/ Thanks for your help and understanding. the caps in my later commit comment weren't helpful and I regret them. Please accept my apology. Tarheelcoxn 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

good edits lately

Even though we disagree I respect your neutrality.--Urthogie 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a proposed renaming with Gatoclass on the apartheid talk page. Would you mind to share your thoughts?--Urthogie 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War

I and most supporters of the move 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War were unaware of the vote that took place. I would like to prepare another proposal for the move immediately following the dispute over "War" and "war"--which I have no particular stance on (yet). I have collected a variety of sources on the Naming Talk discussion page. Please let me know what else I can do for support. --Shamir1 08:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-[RELIGION] category deletions

You should take them all to deletion review and ask for them to be nominated again, and then put notices on their various article pages so that people know these votes are happening. These articles are very useful and should not be deleted just because some idiots try to add things to them to make points. --70.51.228.236 02:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting feedback at 2006 Lebanon War talk

Hi, I noticed that you're one of the fairly active editors on the 2006 Lebanon War article. If you have a chance, please take part in the requested move discussion going on there. The move is in regards to whether we should use uppercase "War" or lowercase "war" in the article title. Whether you agree or disagree with my position, your feedback and vote would be appreciated. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti Judaism

I did not delete any category; I added a category to the artices. I did this so the collection of articles would not disappear. I do not think the anti-Judaism category should be deleted, but every other anti-religion category has been deleted in the last few days so I expect this one will go also. I was trying to be helpful. Why all the excitement? Hmains 03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

National Monument to the Forefathers formerly known as Pilgrim Monument in Plymouth

Thank you much for the digging. I didn't know about that monument so I did some digging, too. It appears to still be there in Plymouth albeit under a new name: National Monument to the Forefathers Perhaps they changed the name to avoid confusion with the one in Provincetown? Peter 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia page on this. Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page to distinguish the two monuments? Just a thought... What do you think? Peter 03:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Leo Frank

I agree that this should not be in category of wrongful convictions but I also do not want to edit war over it. Ironduke wants this category included and doesn't seem like he will change his mind about it. Anyways, --Tom 13:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

You mentioned on Talk that you hadn't looked into these sources. In your last edit you said "this seems perfectly sourced". Would you please care to quote the lines in the included references that say that that list of weapons is military aid? What I see is an appendix listing many of the weapons included (some of them aren't even mentioned there, like the small arms) title "U.S.-SUPPLIED WEAPONRY" - ie, some probably were aid, some were purchased, with no distinction. The WPI report says "The bulk of Israel’s current arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S. military aid programs" - ie some is not, in addition to not specifically mentioning what was and what wasn't. Under "Recent U.S. Military Sales to Israel", the CRS report says "Israel uses almost 75% of its FMF [Foreign Military Financing (direct military aid)] funds to purchase U.S. defense equipment." - that has no relevance at all, since in addition to not tying the money to any specific products, it doesn't even say what part of the purchase is is FMF. Tewfik^Talk 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonomous

Nimmo posted and then an anon account immediately took the debate up where he left off. Similar writing style and content to Nimmo so highly likely it is him even if he didn't admit it. I could be wrong. BTW I am not too happy with Tewfiks edit as it places undue emphasis on a single blog entry without context. It may still be factual but has changed a simple statement to one with emotional conotations. I wont bother with debating that edit but i'd be interested in your opinion as you seem to be the only one not letting your POV cloud judgement. Wayne 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bothered if the artical is deleted or not. I just find author bios handy for checking when I read something interesting.

As for your statement "The way a flock of like minded editors can easily bias an article is remarkable;" I have an excellent example I was involved in that may interest you.

This paragraph in the U.S. Economics section went for RFC. This is itself a compromise as the original mentioned "income inequality" (an important concept in economics) which was deleted as being a POV phrase:
The long-term trend for wages of middle-income Americans has largely been stagnant since the 1970s and fallen for low-income earners, despite substantial gains in hourly labor productivity. While most income gains in the US have gone mostly to the upper 20%, technological progress, increased worker benefits, and the emergence of the two-earner household have boosted the nation's standard of living
The references were the Census bureau, CIA Fact Book and it was largely repeated by Bush in a speech. The arguement for changing it was basically that it made the U.S. look bad.
This is what appears to replace it in the current version:
Although income levels in the U.S. are high, income is distributed less equally than in similar developed nations such as Austria or Sweden.
What The? lol Wayne 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Interested?

Category:Wikipedians who are opposed to instant run-off voting. --Wassermann 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

your move of Vincent de Paul

I have done what I can to reduce the effects of that move. I have moved your disambiguation page to Vincent de Paul (disambiguation) because the saint is the much more common meaning of the term. I'll probably expand that disambig page to avoid the big notice on top of Vincent de Paul (saint). I have also redirected Vincent de Paul to Vincent de Paul (saint) because that is the much more common use of the name, and redirected Vincent De Paul to Vincent De Paul (actor) since that is the correct capitalisation; I have put a disambig notice on the actor page. If I've majorly messed anything up, tell me. I'll be offline for the next 15 to 20 minutes though. Graham87 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the big disambiguation notice on Vincent de Paul (saint) really a problem? I can't see how the entries can be removed neatly. Graham87 06:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep that sounds like a good idea. Graham87 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

--Abnn 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Category essay

Could you possibly develop it further - I have had many ideas come from manually tagging categories for the Indonesian and Australian projects - the development of your essay is sorely needed to point out issues some misguided souls to put them out of their misadventures and misery - more power to your work! SatuSuro 04:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that category talk pages should actually be provided with a project wide template that they are not places for talk! (heheheh) no doubt that will upset some. I have left a comment (from my perspective) at the essay page - and I may well be very off the mark of what you are trying to do - but I hope I am somewhere in the range of what you are trying to do. Please dont hesitate to correct me/counter my idea - its there to get something rolling - I hope I am in the right direction SatuSuro 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"fabri aut quaestuariae filius"

= son of a labourer or a prostitute. See for yourself: faber and quaestuarius (masculine), quaestuaria (feminine). If you want references to this (said to be) Jewish attack on Jesus' origins, see Brown: The Birth of the Messiah, Appendix V: The Charge of Illegitimacy. Lima 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Global perspectives project

Hi Kendrick7! I came across your name on the talk page of another user User_talk:WLRoss, which prompted me to take a look at some of your contributions on the site--really impressive stuff. Kudos for all your hard work. Anyways, I thought you might be interested in the newly formed global perspectives task force, which is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The basic idea of the task force is to try to ensure that key articles reflect a truly global perspective, especially in terms of the sources on which the articles rely. Based on the work you have done on the site, this seemed up your alley, so I wanted to invite you to take a look at the project page and, if you're interested, add your name to the list of participants. It would be great to have someone with your outstanding commitment to Wikipedia involved. Cheers! --Mackabean 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

re: those articles

If I have a span of free time... right now I'm at a summer internship where I can't write out sourced articles exactly. Plus I'm involved in some silly genetics/demographics dispute on this article about ancient Egypt. That's why I want red links... so other people can begin these articles.--Urthogie 03:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites

Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Linking to attack sites. While disputed, it nevertheless remains both in-force, as well as common sense. PR's e-mail is active, just e-mail him the link. That will accomplish what you wish. -- Avi 16:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some who don't find that policy to be anything within a continent's-width of "common sense"... see my essay on the subject. *Dan T.* 18:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. Trying hard?

I firmly believe that you are trying to ger Jayjg into deep water with ArbCom, what I am trying to state is that the arbitration committee aren't going to rule on Jayjg's conduct or anyone else for that matter. This request was opened to look at PR's conduct as an appeal to his block, either support the block or not support it allowing PR to get back on with editing. Now that he has been fully unblocked, there is no issue anymore - it's just wasting peoples time, especially the arbitration committee who have got far more important things to deal with that a small group of PR's friends that wish to see a couple of sysops get a slap on the wrist. This case isn't an admin abuse case, and however hard you try, it's not going to change into one, so I strongly urge you to drop it, so we can put the whole incident to sleep. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstood

My apologies for my brusqueness, I've recently become sick to the teeth of editors who almost only make edits putting one of the templates that state "this needs a fix" - I misread your request as one for 'kickers being used', not that they were 'often used and more so than in other variants' - you are most certainly not in the 'tag it and forget it' bunch and my apologies for biting.--Alf ^melmac 09:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust

Please take your baiting somewhere else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

All I ever see you do is bait people. You saw the Holocaust was being improved and so you turned up to be disruptive. I'm asking you not to. If you really are a good-faith editor as you're claiming, I'm requesting that you demonstrate that by leaving that article alone. Anyone who has read the main sources knows that most, not just many but most, scholars use the term to refer to the Shoah. Even the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in its introductory book, having explained at the beginning that they have decided to use the term as inclusively as possible, proceeds to discuss it as the destruction of the Jews. You may think this is wrong, but that's how it is. Please leave it alone and allow us to continue to improve it without this constant sniping. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Then make sure every edit and every talk page comment you make is constructive, because I will take you to the ArbCom if you try to do at the Holocaust what you've done elsewhere. You're not going to be allowed to reduce the article to the usual badly written POV claim versus POV counter-claim, then tagged when you don't get your own way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I'm facing the same issues with SlimVirgin in similiar disputes. She has also personally attacked groupes of editors calling them anti-Islamic. It seems to me that she pushes other people to follow policies which she breaks herself. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt meant to ask you to be involved in that article, I only wanted to let you know that I had faced some issues with SlimVirgin as well. thanks, --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

International response to the Holocaust

Hi. I'm writing something up right now. I should have done it sooner. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

** Temporarily BLOCKED ** for 3RR in The Holocaust

You have been blocked from editing for 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:04, 5 June 2007 (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:

These are different edits in an attempt to reach a compromise at Talk:The_Holocaust#Applicability_of_the_term_Holocaust, which I had every reason to believe had been reached. I didn't understand that there was any question that the word "many" here was a clearly afoul of WP:AWW; the only question I thought existed was how best to resolve this problem. Also, SlimVirgin falsely characterized my previous block log as having three blocks in a few days, when that was in fact a block, and unblock, and a reblock (entire;y without my input). If you would consider my recent editing history with SlimVirgin, this seems like 3RR as an electric chair, not an electric fence.

Reply to Kbdank -- I do know the rules; I tried to fix the sentence, and when it was reverted, I tagged the sentence and took the issue to the talk page at Talk:The_Holocaust#Applicability_of_the_term_Holocaust. But then even the tags were being reverted, so I tried again, 23 hours later (not that I was watching the clock), to fix it. All this is doing is delaying the filing of an WP:RfC on this sentence, since it's clearly in violation of WP:WEASEL as it stands. 48 hours for different changes which all happened to remove one weasel word is excessive. I do not now have, nor have I ever had, any intention to continue reverting this sentence. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

From 3RR:"The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors." You've been blocked for 3RR before, you know the rules. — Kbdank71 14:59, 5 June 2007 (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.

You specifically objected to the word "many",[2] and then removed it,[3] [4], then explicitly tagged it as a "weasel word".[5] People explained in Talk: that the word "many" was quite reasonable here,[6] but you insisted that it was original research.[7] Then, when a source was brought which specifically said "many", you deleted it anyway, multiple times. The whole debate on the Talk: page was about the word "many". When you are simply reverting people's edits who have already reverted you, you know that a "compromise" had not "been reached". Your prevarications and obfuscations are completely disingenuous. Finally, regarding your recent edit history with SlimVirgin, you stalked her to The Holocaust article, so you can hardly complain now. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Baloney. You added one more source and thought somehow that made your use of a weasel word OK? Given your strict adherence to WP:AWW when it suits you, how was I supposed to expect you'd suddenly want to block someone when it didn't? I specifically believed I reached an understanding with Slim at User Talk:SlimVirgin so she was the last person I expected to report me for 3RR here. Furthermore, I didn't stalk SlimVirgin. That's completely absurd. I rewrote Martin Niemöller two weeks ago. Showing up at the Holocaust article was a completely logical progression of my edit history. I work with you, Slim, and Humus Sapiens all the time on articles, and a simple warning that I had violated 3RR by removing the word "many" 4x within 23 hours would have sufficed; I certainly would have done that for any one of you. This was nothing short of a vindictive block proposal. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already declined this once, I'll let someone else review it. Let me ask you one question, though: Are you telling me you did not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours? --Kbdank71 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request." El_C 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In a very legalistic and technical sense, I had different edits which had one word of overlap, yes. One of the removals of "many" was, God as my witness, a typo, which I would have fixed had it not been immediately reverted, resulting in an edit conflict.[8] I had meant to write, per the new source, "A scholar named Kren says that many...." But that's only my word for it. Different edits, wherein I had one word change overlap, for which I discussed extensively both on the Talk:The_Holocaust#Applicability_of_the_term_Holocaustarticle talk page and at User Talk:Slim Virgin is an incredibly legalistic use of the WP:3RR policy, which is supposed to prevent edit warring. My next step was to file an RfC, which will be the first thing I do once this block ends, as it became clear no one was paying attention to the reasoning on the talk page, and others wished to remove the "dubious" tag which pointed to it. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that there's a difference between effectively reverting, and intending to revert. Obviously, he effectively reverted. However, I think his claim is that he was trying (though not really very effectively) to work something out that he thought slimvirgin would accept (again, questionable wisdom there). However, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. If he says that his next step is an RfC, not to continue reverting (and there's no reason to believe this isn't the case), then a continued block seems entirely unnecessary. Unless, of course, you feel that he will go back to reverting, and just skip the RfC. (although, of course, you could use that sort of action as a valid reason for a much longer block anyways)

Just a comment. Me done now. No more unsolicited opinions from bladestorm. :) Bladestorm 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I had never intended to continue reverting this sentence, and still do not. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

These apologetics are unbecoming; he clearly not only "effectively" reverted, but also also "intended" to revert. When you use the "Undo" feature to revert someone's edits, you intend to revert, plain and simple. And the issue itself was not one with SlimVirgin, but with several editors, all of whom disagreed with Kendrick7. As for his claim that he would take it to file an RfC, he'd been edit-warring over this for days. He didn't like the phrase "many scholars", and was doing whatever he could to remove or downplay it in some way. That was what the debate was about, and that's what the 3RR violation was about. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Days? Well, I had honestly thought it was two days, but, the reason I am blocked for 3RR seems to be because it was, in fact, only one day. I have seen the light that several editors disagree, and, as best I can tell, believe this one sentence should be, for wholly unexplained reason, a special exception to the WP:AWW guidelines, and am going to file an RfC, as this seems like a very odd consensus. There's little else to be done here. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First, it isn't true, as you say above, that you've not been blocked for 3RR three times before. You were blocked for 3RR at 10:40, December 30, 2006 by William M. Connolley; at 07:42, January 14, 2007 by Tawker; and at 02:49, January 15, 2007 by FeloniousMonk: three 3RR blocks in just over two weeks. [9]

You say you weren't edit warring, but what you were doing is pretty well the definition of edit warring. The material you were trying to get rid of is well-sourced; you were told this by several people (plus you could see it for yourself); no one supported you; the writing you introduced was poor; and yet you kept on reverting. In addition, you stalked me to the Holocaust in the first place (an article you hadn't edited recently but I had edited a lot), to the point where I had to tell you I would take you to the ArbCom if it continued [10]; then you later stalked me to a policy page I had edited a lot and you had never edited, where you started reverting, triggering an edit war that led to page protection.

You bait people. You turn up at pages you think they care about, particularly anything to do with Jews or Judaism, and you play cat and mouse with them to the great detriment of the articles.

Here are the diffs of the 3RR violation for anyone looking at this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, r to Slim) You had said within two weeks' on your block request, which was inaccurate; I had assumed you had misread my log, which one way or another you have. I am not going to address content arguments I've already addressed at Talk:Holocaust. You have never accused me of stalking you before this post just now. I had quoted Martin Niemöller's famous poem about the Holocaust, which every American student learns about in school, during a discussion at WP:CN weeks ago,[11] and curious about about the author, I extensively edited his article in mid-May.[12] There's no conspiracy required for me to end up editing the Holocaust article shortly thereafter. I walk by the New England Holocaust memorial, upon which a version of Niemöller's poem is inscribed, frequently. (Not for any real sentimental reason, it simply stands between my train depot and a variety of drinking establishments)

I had no idea you were involved in that policy debate at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As you can see above, Avi pointed me to this debate after I reverted some else's blank of a link, which I had mistaken for censorship (I didn't follow the link). Dan T pointed me to his essay yesterday, and knowing this was recently tagged, I was motivated enough to try and fix it. I didn't mean to start an edit war, and when I realized I had, I requested to have the page locked down to make it stop.[13]-- Kendrick7^talk 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You were reverted in this by five different editors, and opposed on Talk: by a sixth. Not one editor supported your removal of "many scholars", yet you somehow didn't figure out that continually removing it was revert-warring and objected to. As for WP:AWW, it's a guideline, not policy, and has not been violated in this case in any event. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I screwed up. But, I am consistently amazed at what flocks of editors defend. I was simply trying to apply the guideline: Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view, and the lack of given sources also implies a verifiability issue. Either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. I still believe the sentence is the perfect example of a statement that can't stand alone without the word "many" because it would be a POV statement, i.e. making it sound as if scholarship were monolithic on the exclusion of these groups. Which I would have explained more fully had I not had a train to catch.[14] -- Kendrick7^talk 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You already explained your POV on this, more than once. However, everyone disagreed with you. One reason was that many scholars were indeed brought who supported that position; thus, the reader could indeed decide whether or not the source of the opinion was reliable. The second was that one source was brought which explicitly stated the obvious point that "many scholars" supported that view. While I can understand how one might make the argument, albeit incorrectly, that the formulation violated WP:AWW before that source was brought, after it was brought the further removals of the phrase were simply WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So when I find a source that says "many do not" exclude these groups, which is just as true, then what do we do? Is it eventually going to have to say: Many scholars say many scholars exclude....? It gets absurd pretty quick not to just fix the weasel word to begin with. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't know the first thing about the Holocaust. I doubt you've read a single scholarly work on it in your life. Yet you feel you can turn up, because you want to stalk me, and start messing with an important article that others have put a lot of work into, without even doing us the courtesy of reading something first.

The sentence should actually read that "most" scholars don't include these other groups in the def. I wrote "many" so as to avoid people fighting about "most." But it is unquestionably correct that the majority of scholars count the other groups as part of the German genocide, but discuss the Holocaust as the Shoah.

Have you even read the article, which explains this point? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This German genocide you speak of -- what is it called, and where is the article on it? The Holocaust isn't it? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked, and German Genocide redirects to Holocaust. There's an implicit problem with either the title of the article, or the redirect, or the lead (that I tried to fix) which excludes all the Nazi's other victims. I've got three million dead bodies and no where to put them. 3RR is the least of my problems. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it a misreading of your block log to say you were blocked for 3RR three times within two weeks? The blocks are 10:40, December 30, 2006 by William M. Connolley; 07:42, January 14, 2007 by Tawker; and 02:49, January 15, 2007 by FeloniousMonk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Within two weeks would be less than 14 days by my reckoning; from Dec 30 to Jan 14 is 15 days. I just thought you thought that unblock in there was among the blocks. Tawker's and FeloniousMonk's blocks were for the same thing, as you may recall (I don't even remember that first block was for though). So you were kinda piling on. I don't blame you if you thought I was stalking you, which I hope you'll accept I was not. I didn't realize that's what you were on about when you brought up ArbCom yesterday. I've been throwing y'all some bones lately, I had thought. I tool AoIA off my watchlist, I didn't edit war with you over my rewrite of Muhammad al-Durrah. There must be a ton of article you and Jay work on that I've never shown up on. That would get eerie otherwise.... -- Kendrick7^talk 21:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, we all make typos once in a while, and I would fully understand and sympathize with that. But why do you insist that you thought there was consensus when clearly there wasn't? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I had made what seemed like a reasonable argument (at 16:59)and no one had replied. Jayjg just came along to remove the tag, which I had interpreted as grudging acceptance, without wanting to cut his own throat of course, of the argument on talk. I wasn't sure what he expected to be done with the source he added, but that struck me as just one person's opinion, so I was going to spell that out (my 2nd revert by Slim's list, at 1:15,[15] which as the big tag in the middle of the sentence might suggest, I really hadn't put much thought into, let alone previewed, and had intended to put the word "many" back into, because as it stood the edit actually made no sense as that was the guy actually saying "many"), but then, having arrived at the "edit conflict" screen, decided that line was probably really a WP:POINT edit (unlike the dubious tag, IMHO), which had already been reverted, so I went with something like my original intention. That was my third revert at 1:19. Only at 1:21 did Jay make clear on the talk page he wasn't at all happy with my argument. If he hadn't been removing the tag without addressing the arguments on talk which the tag referred to, those are two edits I would not have made. I hadn't appreciated having had a first, similar, revert 23 1/2 hours prior, in any case -- my weekends, when I am off the clock, do blur, and I wasn't really considering that anyone would suggest the 2nd revert was of the same kind. Not really trying to war, I figured I had one more revert (which I'd only had thought was my second for the day), which I imagined would probably be reverted while I was in transit, and that I would arrive home a few hours later, maybe reason with Jayjg some more on the talk page, and probably end up filing an RfC, which I've done in the past when I'm outnumbered on something and yet can easily point to a guideline and say "look." -- Kendrick7^talk 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. I came on to ask you something about the AoIA timeline fiasco (it's been moved to a different page and is being loaded with junk in an orgy of point-making), but I can see you're rather occupied...--G-Dett 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw Jayjg's attempt to keep it linkless, as Hafrada (Separation) is still on my watchlist, but I took User:Uncle.bungle's advice[16] a step further and have retired from AoIA again. At the end of the day, I realized I could care less about the time line. I may check back in a few months. But, as they say, out of the frying pan into the fire. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, I am unblocking you because I want to believe that indeed you acted in good faith. For the record, I still think that you have violated 3RR, but maybe 48 hours was too harsh. If you feel that I made a mistake, feel free to report me at WP:ANI. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, now you should be able to edit any page. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From G-Dett

Nice to see you've been let out of your cage. I can well understand your giving up on the timeline, given the disruptions of the dedicated. I think perhaps the way forward is a "history" section, per the model of New antisemitism. Anyway I hope you come back to the page.

I'm not about to jump into your dispute on the Holocaust article, but I did take a look at the source that's been cited to support the use of weasel words (Weissman). Google Books provides a standing temptation to ideological editors to "data mine" sources instead of actually reading them, with the result that both unwitting distortion and conscious manipulation of source materials is becoming a chronic problem in Wikipedia; so it's always worth while to check these things. I checked, and sure enough the Weissman citation provides a classic example.

Here's the citation as it appears in Wikipedia article:

Weissman, Gary. Fantasies of Witnessing: Postwar Attempts to Experience the Holocaust, Cornell University Press, 2004, ISBN 0801442532, p. 94: "Kren illustrates his point with his reference to the Kommissararbefehl. 'Should the (strikingly unreported) systematic mass starvation of Soviet prisoners of war be included in the Holocaust?' he asks. Many scholars would answer no, maintaining that 'the Holocaust' should refer strictly to those events involving the systematic killing of the Jews'."

The sentence beginning "Many scholars would answer no," is Weissman's, not Kren's. Whoever added it to the article mistakenly added an internal close-quote after "Jews," introducing the ambiguity.

More important is the omitted surrounding context, especially the explanation of Kren's "point." What follows is a restored quotation, with the omitted sentences bolded:

Although the Holocaust is composed of countless events, it is commonly referred to as "the event" (or, with more gravitas, as "the Event"). As historian George M. Kren explains in "The Holocaust as History": "The word Holocaust does not refer to an event, but is a generalization that unites a variety of discrete events under one rubric: the killing of the mentally ill in Germany, the mass shootings of Jews by the Einsatzgruppen, the Kommissarbefehl (commissar order) that resulted in the killing of Communist functionaries, and the establishment of the death camps. The unity between these events is a historical judgment, never self-evident, and in the case of the Holocaust always subject to polemical arguments." Kren illustrates his point with his reference to the Kommissararbefehl. "Should the (strikingly unreported) systematic mass starvation of Soviet prisoners of war be included in the Holocaust?" he asks. Many scholars would answer no, maintaining that "the Holocaust" should refer strictly to those events involving the systematic killing of the Jews. Meanwhile, the canon of Holocaust literature includes much fiction and non-fiction written by non-Jews who were political prisoners in the camps.

The restored passage seriously undermines your opponents' interpolation of it in the Holocaust article. First of all, both Weissman and Kren agree that "the Holocaust" includes the killing of Communists, the mentally ill, and so on. The views of "many scholars" (which Wikipedia editors would like to present as definitive, a scholarly consensus) are introduced by Weissman rather as an illustration of the sort of "polemical arguments" visited upon Holocaust history. Polemical arguments, moreover, which are notably offset by "the canon of Holocaust literature."

Secondly, note that Weissman does not write, "Many scholars would answer no, maintaining that 'the Holocaust' should refer strictly to the systematic killing of the Jews." Rather he writes, "Many scholars would answer no, maintaining that "the Holocaust" should refer strictly to those events involving the systematic killing of the Jews." The difference is subtle but crucial. The deaths of millions of Roma, for example, in the concentration camps would qualify as part of the Holocaust under one formulation but not the other, while the treatment of Soviet POW's would not qualify under either formulation.

The footnote to this passage indeed focuses on the inclusion of the Roma "as a victim group targeted by the Nazis for extermination." This he describes as "one of the most notable debates" – but the debate as he presents it (and as Ian Hancock, whose argument he follows and cites approvingly, presents it) is not whether the slaughter of Roma/Gypsies counts as part of the Holocaust, but rather – and it's a very different question – whether they were specifically targeted for extermination. Weissman rounds out the footnote by citing Michael Berenbaum, who "positions the murder of European Jews 'at the center of the tragedy of the Holocaust' and the murder of the Gypsies 'near that center'."

In short, your opponents at Holocaust are (wittingly or not) guilty of two significant distortions of source materials in their use of and defense of weasel words:

1. They misrepresent Weissman's critique of "polemical arguments" as a summary of scholarly consensus; and
2. They misread or misrepresent a discussion about whether other groups were systematically targeted for annihilation as a discussion about whether the slaughter of members of these groups on a vast scale qualifies as part of the Holocaust at all.

In other words, you're right and you're right. Next time just take your 48 hours. I hate to see you grovelling.--G-Dett 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)