User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/5

Where the hell are you Kendrick?

I hope it's a deserved summer vacation, and that you haven't slunk off on account of a few admins' hyperventilations.--G-Dett 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories for Deletion

Hi, I see useful categories deleted constantly, and I find it incredibly annoying. I saw your comments on the CFD talk page and thought you might be sympathetic on the issue as well. The most recent example being Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Italian-American_journalists. However, another that comes to mind is "bands with only one constant member" Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Bands The main problem I see is that very few wikipedians put categories on their watchlists, so a small subset of people (who seemed to have a reflex towards "delete as unencyclopedic") have a disproportionate say in how CFDs turn out. I'd like to see both a deletion review for these categories, and somehow address the larger problem of useful categories being deleted without potentially interested parties ever people informed. If you have any comments or suggestions on either matter, please post them at my talk page. I'm also contacting a few other people to join the discussion, feel free to invite others yourself. Thanks. --Osbojos 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust haggling

More back-and-forth discussions are occurring on The Holocaust's article. If you are not tired of dealing with the usual admins on patrol, please weigh in on the current discussion. —Parhamr 09:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Kathleen Christison

Hey. I noticed your comment on the Talk:Palestine page about creating an article on Christison only to have it deleted. Well, I "re"-created it (I didn't know that someone had tried to make one before until GabrielF came along and tried to speedy delete it. Luckily, an admin popped in to save the day saying that speedy deletes on the basis of lack of notability were not so cool.) Anyway, it's there again if you have anything to add. Maybe you know how to ask someone for a copy of the original article you wrote so we can merge the content? Tiamat 11:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Albigensian Crusade

Having discussed the withdrawal of GA with LuciferMorgan, I give notice that I am sitting down with the three classic original source texts (Puylaurens, Vaux-de-Cernay and de Tudèle - the last in the Livre de Poche edition as the Martin-Chabot is long out of print) to add the missing inline citations to this page. I do not intend at this point to make any textual alterations, but if comments are made which are NOT justified, be prepared to state your sources now. Jel 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PR pretty happy - are you?

Hi Kendrick - I was getting the impression I'd been released from the requirement to have a mentor. Either that, or I had one who really didn't want to be bothered with any of the day-to-day details such as I've provided to the good people who've previously tried to fill this role (and had it fairly brutally cut short in 3 cases now).

I see myself as an easy-going sort of guy, I don't believe I've given any of my mentors a hard time - in fact, rather far from it. I can document two occasions with one mentor when I felt muzzled for ideological reasons but complied without complaint. Only when she was side-lined with another totally inconclusive (may I call it baseless?) "disciplinary" and her work came under bitter criticism did I point out she'd been decidedly pro-active in her 3 weeks.

Still that was not enough to stop the peanut gallery as they started on the next mentor, who lasted 2 weeks. I'd propose that I stop my irritating habit of bombarding my mentor with questions I think could be thorny - but are you sure you're happy to take on the severe outside pressure it seems you're bound to come under?[1][2]

If you really know what you're letting yourself in for, and are still not put off, then I'd be delighted to accept your offer and have you as mentor. It's not my place to give you advice, but it might be useful to disengage the "E-mail this user" feature pronto, at least the avalanche then has to be in full view. Regards, PR^talk 08:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 Dodd immigration documentation

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2007/05/03/dodd_claims_mccain_has_walked_away_from_immigration_reform/ as requested

left documentation re: Dodd immigration position

left on the talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer Article

Some people are removing my 3rd party, sourced information from the Bobby Fischer article. I invite you to examine this sourced material, and see why it belongs.

First, please download this file, which is the audio from an online Interview that was on the chess.fm radio broadcast in October 1996:

http://www.GothicChess.com/radio.wma.zip

Decompress the file, and listen to it with Windows Media Player, or some other audio player that supports the stream format. The fact that you can download this file from a website owned by Ed Trice has no bearing on its true source, namely, the ICC chess.fm internet radio channel. They only archive their broadcasts for one calendar year, and Trice requested a copy of it in exchange for being on the program. Clearly that is the voice of Dan Heisman, who does the broadcast. His ICC handle is "PhillyTutor" and he can confirm that Trice was on the show to discuss the sourced material that is being cited here.

There is no way this was a "rumor" if so many people were involved.

Next, take a look at this YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54I8wqm2NeE

Note that it is from a company that supplies interviews with individuals from a variety of backgrounds. There is no link between Ed Trice, Gothic Chess, and the news agency that performed this interview. Their YouTube account is:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheInterviewpoint

It is clear that this is 3rd party sourced material.

Also, take a look at the interview itself. Karpov's signature on the contract to play Fischer is right there. No rumor. Properly sourced.

This material belongs.

Clearly Trice was in Iceland, if you looked at the images that are linked from the blog:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/alexis_ed_streetsign.jpg

And here is Grandmaster Fridrik Olafsson, longtime friend of Fischer's examining the new Gothic Chess pieces:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/Fridrik_pieces.jpg

The plastic pieces are from the set Ed Trice sells online, the wooden pieces are designed by the House of Staunton:

http://www.houseofstaunton.com/gothicchess.html

Frank Camaratta, owner of the HouseOfStaunton.com, was on the Iceland trip to showcase his wooden pieces for Fischer's approval. Here is a photo showing Olafsson, Alexis Skye, Frank Camaratta, and Ed Trice all together in Iceland in a meeeting:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/news_meeting.jpg

His phone number is listed on his website as (256) 858-8070 and their email address is sales@houseofstaunton.com

You can contact them to confirm that Frank was there, and the purpose was for Fischer to approve his Gothic Chess set for use in the match with Karpov.

There is plenty of 3rd party sourced material that supports the fact that the match was well underway, and Fischer was just being Fischer and backed out. This was not a rumor. This is fact. And Wikipedia was founded on the premise that factual, sourced material can be included in articles.

ChessHistorian 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And if so, can you give us some??

bahaha, thanks for giving me my chuckle of the day, and helping me clear out my sinuses. Dureo 07:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Apocalypse of Zerubbabel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How nice to see an article actually well written. Thanks The Wild West guy 12:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please look at PR edit

Hi Kendrick - please see this. PR^talk 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And another one, please see here. PR^talk 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Two more, please see here. Albert Einstein/Menachem Begin, also details on Shaw Report information. PR^talk 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Two more here, a Menachem Begin #2 (different article) and "Media Coverage in I-P". PR^talk 12:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has complied with the agreement I thought I had to protect your work from harassment (or protect me from bullying as another editor seems to think). However, I thought the mentorship had been going rather well up to that point and I'm loath to see it torpedoed. Rather than bug your TalkPage with these matters, I've opened a page here and transfered all the most useful parts of the previous effort there. I'll need reminding how to flag the first page for deletion in a day or two. PR^talk 18:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Another edit to consider, "Daniel Pipes on French Muslims". I've had to creat the matching mentorship query here, now that the original mentorship page has been attacked and ruined. PR^talk 16:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Response added. PR^talk 19:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm offering to revert that if you really think it's out of order. Also see here. PR^talk 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC) And here. PR^talk 13:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you make of this? PR^talk 20:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My conversation with PR

Hi Kendrick7. Let me briefly introduce myself -- I've been working on a few Israel-Palestinian articles in trying to play a contructive, facilitative role. At Battle of Jenin, which is edit-protected, I recently helped work out an editing dispute with folks on both "sides" (Armon, Eleland, G-Dett, Tewfik) and submitted a smallish edit for the article. On the Talk page, PR appears to be objecting to this small edit. I've asked PR about his concerns and he's replied -- our exchange. However, before the conversation goes any further, I'm wondering if you could look at the situation and discuss it yourself with PR. I'm hoping PR will either accept the small edit, or clarify his concerns and make collaborative suggestions.

(PR -- I assume you'll read this page fairly soon. Feel free to comment here. Rather than create a long discussion thread, I'm hoping Kendrick will help things go smoothly.)

Best to you both, HG | Talk 16:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys - I started to ramble a bit in this discussion with HG (which is something I know Kendrick hates me doing). Rather than have yet another mentor feel overwhelmed, I've lifted the conversation and placed it here instead. Trust that was alright. PR^talk 15:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. There's too much here for me to get my whole head around. I hope you both can sort this out. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo redirect Al-Ameriki tribe

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Al-Ameriki tribe, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Al-Ameriki tribe is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Al-Ameriki tribe, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 14:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Signing my posts

You said "Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes, this will automatically insert your username and the date."

Thank you! :) I was wondering how to do that

from Kat

Speedy deletion of Fabrizio Lai

A tag has been placed on Fabrizio Lai requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Swift Boat challenge‎

==Swift Boat challenge‎==

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Swift Boat challenge‎, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. /Blaxthos (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Swift Vets and POWs for Truth#Swift Boat challenge. /Blaxthos (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the proposed deletion. See Talk:Swift Boat challenge. /Blaxthos (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Gazimestan speech

Hi. I'm having problems with PalestineRemembered on Gazimestan speech article. He is persistently reverting the article to include a POV sentence, despite anything I do. I opened a request for mediation to which he didn't respond, only to continue reverting when the request timed out. I don't have the time to go into details, but you can read more at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gazimestan speech and pages linked from there. What would you suggest that I do? Nikola (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nikola has a long history of questionable editing at this article, the whole history of which is (quite unusually!) clearly visible on the TalkPage. Nikola's differences with other editors dominate it, this is just the most recent. He appears to be at odds with every other editor taking part and often makes statements implying that he will edit-war. (My apologies, I can bring many diffs if necessary, but I really don't think it's necessary).

PR, your mentor is here to help you contribute to Wikipedia properly. He can't do a good job when you are misleading him. Nikola (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is Nikola removing a totally disputed tag, clearly against consensus.

That edit was actually on April 20. When that tag is added to the article, it is expected that editor who adds it explains why is it added at the talk page. At the talk page of the time, no one mentioned that the article deserves the tag[3]. Nikola (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That effort was in March, before the very necessary (and scholarly) total re-write in June, acceptable to everyone (?) else, but over which he has edit-warred and inserted POV ever since. Here is a part that is now back in the article, I presume it comes from him and I think we must agree it is unsatisfactory, bearing very little relation to what RSs say: "Milošević actually spoke of the "battles" in the context of "implementing economic, political, cultural, and general social prosperity" and himself later said that he had been misrepresented."

An important part of the problem is that Nikola will participate in Talk, but only re-actively against other people's suggestions. He will never (?) offer his suggestions for improvement before applying them, making it difficult for others to point out the problems and operate in a collegiate fashion.

Wrong. [4], [5]. Nikola (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The latest "dispute" seems to be between Nikola's POV version "This development led to Kosovo's Serbs and Montenegrins being opressed by Albanian authorities, which, together with poor economy" and the NPOV version "The reassertion of Albanian nationalism and a worsening economy". To native English speakers, the second says almost exactly the same thing as the first - but only the second is acceptable in the encyclopedia. (Wobbly spelling in Nikola's offering doesn't improve matters).

Wrong. The dispute is not about that at all. The dispute is between POV version supported by you: The reassertion of Albanian nationalism [...] led to complaints from the Kosovo Serbs that they were being discriminated against [...] and NPOV version: The reassertion of Albanian nationalism [led to] discrimination of Serbs [...]. Nikola (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All this is sad because, as I've said several times, I'm sure Nikola has much of value to bring to articles. But his influence will only be disruptive as long as he refuses to learn and understand from other editors.

There is a confusing element in here, and it probably renders my threat to take this back to arbitration partially null and void. The "Probation of the Arbitration Committee" tag apparently refers to links to Francisco Gil-White and says "Any editor rightfully can and should remove the links in question, and any admin can and should block [user] if he continues to add links against policy." Although Nikola has argued to use Gil-White as a reference, it turns out he's not the [user] refered to. However, the presence of this tag should alert everyone to the severe problems this article has suffered. This other editor is the only other person I've noticed attempting to POV this article in various ways, including references to Emperors-clothes. PR^talk 12:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of this probation. Nikola (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you go to that page and support what Nikola is trying to do, then I'm sure [redacted]. In the meantime, you'll be the first (?) editor in recent memory to think his constant edits of this article are NPOV or properly constructed. I don't think you'll see anything satisfying as regards what the sources actually say. The only thing I've not done is follow his contribution trail ... Later, I don't think you'll be much impressed with this or this or this. PR^talk 18:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not too impressive, I agree, just normal Wikipedia grunt work. It appears that you want to create an impression that in these edits I am doing something bad. It would be interesting if you would elucidate on this further. Nikola (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Careful

You risked being blocked if you stir up trouble around this issue. It's being dealt with elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about that particular article (I've not been involved, so I don't know the details), but given the controversy around it, and the separate controversy surrounding the editor in question, all I know is that the combination is not a good thing. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

By putting Category:Requests for unblock (reviewed) in Category:Requests for unblock, it royally messes up Category:Requests for unblock so that all the reviewed requests end up in the unreviewed category. Please stop, its disrupting the category and admins ability to sort it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to make this very clear. There is an IRC channel that monitors unblock requests. Your fiddling with the template and adding the unblock cat to the new unblock reviewed cat ACTUALLY messed things up, pretty badly. I know what I'm talking about here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this will be your final warning. Your edits to the categories noted above and to the unblock template are misguided and disruptive. Please stop, or you will be blocked from editing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Jeffrey, and I'll block you myself if you continue. Jeffrey is not being pedantic and his understanding of the word "visible" or whatever term is used, is the correct understanding. The last thing we need is a category for the thousands of pages that have a reviewed unblock request, and your edits are confusing as hell. - auburnpilot talk 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A note to concur, this category is not useful, imagine that we clean 20-30 unblock requests every day. That category would be plenty of useless, unsortable pages at best. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, the category was perhaps bad idea, but the wording of the template is misleading. We can continue this at the template talk page. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming headers...

Thank you for renaming those headers, I was about to do so myself... I mean WTF?. :) Mercury 17:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Ryan Holle

A tag has been placed on Ryan Holle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears 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 an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia 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. Sinclair ^{talk/contribs} 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Andy Azula

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andy Azula, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Andy Azula. Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ryan Holle

I have nominated Ryan Holle, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Holle. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

Hi, do you have any concerns or questions that I can address regarding that? Best regards, Durova^Charge! 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Firearms?

Excuse me, what article are you talking about??? Where did I write firearms?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

popularity and {{current}}

I would wish for CIA interrogation tapes destruction (2005)‎ to be a topic with the interest of many of hundreds of editors, but it is not.
I have spent, for example some effort on Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, and it had its moment, but the tire is now flat. A hot topic is rather obvious, and actually not that fun to edit.
For example take a look at this edit history, which originally caused the template to be created: 2004 Madrid train bombings (this is when it is actually useful to tell other editors, "Wait--there's news happening. Just wait 10 minutes before add your uninformed edit.") -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the kind welcome. I appreciate such courtesy especially coming from a "one character spacer following a period" kind of a guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnybaseball (talk • contribs) 01:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ryan Holle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazism

Yeah sorry about that, it was a really dumb title to choose when I want to be taken seriously! 91.108.241.252 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, Kendrik! I forgot the closing code, and went back and fixed it on every card...but yours :-(. I am a bit Klutzy with code. Jeffpw (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Defender 911

I'm not sure what you're advocating. Defender is considered banned because no administrator is willing to unblock him. Sean William @ 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've reverted to include the {{banneduser}} template, because that's what is currently applicable. Unless you want to run a community discussion for User:Amorrow, as well? Daniel 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Undeletion request

Hi. Thanks for notifying me. To be honest since I don't really remember the specifics here, I'll wait a bit for the AN thread to continue. But were the consensus to unblock, don't hesitate to ask me or anyone for the undeletion, of course. Note that there is no real banning "process", a user is considered banned when no admin in his right mind will unblock (I agree "indef blocked" might have been a better deletion summary though). -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Arrangement Guy

Any reason you welcomed this user two weeks after he was indef blocked as a sockpuppet? It's rather a waste of time, isn't it? Fram (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris Dodd..

No problem. However, you should check out Ron Paul's article. Its well written and is a good model. Don't be afraid to make changes.

Jeremy221 (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Edits

I must insist that you discuss your edits and seek an a consensus before instituting them. If the article gets blocked because people are making contentious edits against consensus, i am going to be more than a little pissed. Please discuss your edits and await feedback prior to making them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you have comments or concerns, esp those which your edit-warring created the need for a 3RR warning, you might find it more useful to use the Discussion page to convince others that they are needed. Otherwise, the perception of your edits as contentious will only cause problems for yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing, btw. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Hi, Kendrick. Since I see that you have previously been blocked several times for violating the three revert rule, I suppose you must be aware of what the rule says. By my count, you have now reverted Santa Claus three times in less than three hours. One more and I will block you for 3RR vio. Please note that I don't have any opinion on the dispute as such. However, should you revert again, I will give you extra block time for unrepentant 3RR recidivism, as is normal practice. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

re: your edit summary

Own the lead? Surely you must be kidding. My dear, they own the whole fucking article. Jeffpw (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just be gald?

Please substantiate on AN/I. Ceoil (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was a witty little rhyme. I laughed the 2nd time I read it, so look forget it. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But

But I was, and you didn't. Reconcile that. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I changed it down to expire at the start of the New Year, but I am keeping protected. I originally got a request for it at WP:RPP.   jj137 ^♠ 21:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Durban Strategy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Durban Strategy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durban Strategy (2nd nomination). Thank you. —Ashley Y 03:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PRIVATE

Please revert yourself and put things back the way they were when the page was protected. This is not the time to try out your own ideas without consensus. Your changes will be reported to the protecting administrator. Risker (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't gotten as far as notifying Alison, and thank you for reverting. The edit war was directly related to the concept of having both versions on the project page at the same time, so any splitting off is in contravention of the purpose for protection. Perhaps that wasn't entirely clear in the history or talk page information. Risker (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's everyone leave things alone now that it's been nominated for MfD. I had been hoping that the community could recognize that there is indeed a middle ground here, but (despite the potential for innocent bystanders to get troutwhacked) I'd rather see no policy than a restrictive one. I was a bit surprised to see WP:Confidential evidence included in the MfD though, and will probably inquire about that. Risker (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

You might want to tread with care on the pages for the PIR websites. Brandt's various 'watch' sites are just riffs off his various 'watch' [6] articles for various topics in PIR's 'namebase' project, with the intention of distributing them more widely and creating controversy, though with more of a personal Brandt-attack flavour. The most relevant parts were pruned and merged into the PIR article.

Moreover, Brandt has been banned from Wikipedia for a streak of attacks on Wikipedia, in which he behaved in a highly dishonest manner. Actions which act to promote his personal conspiracy theory websites are likely to be viewed with an certain degree of suspicion, greater than that which would usually arise from resurrecting a long dead article. John Nevard (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page conclusion was that the sources deleted were bad. Brandt will accuse Wikipedia of anything his mind can muster anyway, though we're just a secondary target compared to Google to him. John Nevard (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

GDS

Good edit, do you think we should be using quotation marks also? Thoughts? Regards, Mercury 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, William Stewart Simkins, was selected for DYK!

On December 31, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Stewart Simkins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please don't start slipping back into your old habits. I'm not sure what's up here[7] but it's the kind of diff that could land you back in hot water. Blanking material, no edit summary? Not good. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any old habits to leave behind. And I've been in extended contact/discussion with an admin who took his own interest in this article and asked me what I wanted him to do about the problems I described. I've asked him to protect it after I've removed the BLP-breaching and consensus-trashing that's gone on at this article. It appears to be 7 to 1 against this editor and his massive abuse of every WP:POLICY, including BLP and notability.

I know I'm supposed to be muzzled for daring to put good material in articles, but I've really edited this article in full and careful appreciation of what's involved and the ax you have hanging over my head. One day, you may have some real reason to block my editing for lack of collegiality or something - but in the meantime, with the very serious problems going on at articles like this, there is far more important work to do. PR^talk 09:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

If you want to re-argue an old MfD, as you apparently intend to do at the John Gohde RfArb, then please familiarize yourself with the reasons that the MfD was actually proposed, and consensus achieved to delete. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, before you make a claim that "we have no article on the guy who invented flash photography" (thanks to me), please do a bit of homework. I looked into the claim that Robert Beck had invented flash photography, or the electric flash, etc at the time of the original AfD, and again during the MfD, and was totally unable to source it. According to Encarta, the photographic flash was invented by Harold Eugene Edgerton (you will be glad to know that we do have an article on him). The New York Times similarly identifies Edgerton as the inventor of the electronic flash. The most I could find, after some exhaustive searching, was a site of dubious provenance dedicated to praising Beck and selling his products; this site advanced the claim that Beck had invented the "electronic flash" (as well as the "strobe flaslight") in his home, and sold the patent to someone else. You will understand, though, that a site claiming that electric current can cure 100% of AIDS and cancer cases requires independent verification of its claims, particularly as they are contradicted by the New York Times etc. I was unable to come up with such verification. I asked Oldspammer to provide sources, during the AfD, but he ignored that request in favor of conspiracy-mongering. If you know of any useful sources describing Beck's purported role in inventing the flash, then please let me know. In the meantime, please do a bit of homework, or at least assume slightly better faith, before hitting "Save". MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks, same to you. Sorry it took so long to respond, I didn't notice it at first - my eyes tend to just go to the bottom of the page. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Leopard Elpeleg

Hi Kendrick7,
Here is a link where you can read Elpeleg chapter about the Mufti and the Holocaust : [8]
Please : note this website is not a reliable source and that this is Elpeleg's book and not Mattar's that is scanned.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh. A little more. user:Ian Pitchford and user:Zero0000 who have an important knowledge on the period always defended the point of view that the Mufti had no "particular" hate versus Jews but I don't know if it was a reaction due to Zeq's harashment, some bias or simply a fair picture. Ceedjee (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Potentially disruptive edits

Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Besides the fact that WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored is an issue in articlespace. This is governed by Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and, of course Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_inappropriate_content. As {{User Hezbollah}} was deleted as inflammatory, all substituted copies therof must be removed as well. Further actions that indicate a willingness to edit in a disruptive fashion may be met with measures taken to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia and project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything on a user page falls under those policies; please read them. Further, the template was speedy deleted as divisive, so substituting the code, as opposed to transcluding the template, is not a protective measure. -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Referring to Hezbollah as purely a political party is disingenuous, as was pointed out on the WP:ANI discussion itself (long discussion at the top). -- Avi (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in the following, all no more than a few months old:

• http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/upload/hl_1038.pdf
• http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/106284.html
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/wlebanon125.xml

I can get you more if you need. -- Avi (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure, and I have to thank you for the tone of the discussion. -- Avi (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize if I have offended you in any way. My point remains that the discussion on WP:ANI now is solely about userboxes. Quotes are a more difficult issue. Some would be perfectly fine; others would be completely inappropriate. Having the current discussion become confused by inserting a larger, more pervasive, and less clear issue such as quotations, and then refuse to implement any decisions until ALL issues are solved will help no one (Perfect solution fallacy). Once again, please accept my apologies if I have offended you, and please let me know what specifically it was I said that offended you so that I may learn from my mistakes. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

Hiya Kendrick7. Thankyou for reminding me - as far as I'm concerned, you're still my real mentor. I've not contacted you, on or off-wiki since I've been busy elsewhere. (I've tended to do the whole of this on-wiki). Please feel free to contact me if you feel the mentorship needs reviving. PR^talk 11:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave it

I'd advise you to not respond to Misza's latest comment at DRV. I think everyone will see that it makes no sense. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:02, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, nevermind. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:03, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

sorry.

didn't mean to confuse you there. It was a blunt metaphor, because blunt talk is needed. repeatedly, it seems. ThuranX (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

PR's evidence

After seeing PR's insinuations to Sam Blacketer about me, and then seeing PR refer to me again in his evidence statement, I felt compelled to respond. As I wrote at the evidence talk page, I'd be glad to strikethrough if PR withdraws those insinuations. And I'd still be glad to collaborate with him in uncontroversial areas. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

P.Mattar and the Mufti

Thx for your help ! I answered on the talk page. I will try with other account(s). :-)
Ceedjee (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not add anymore photos to the Chris Dodd campaign article. They have nothing to do with the subject matter and cause excessive cluttering. If you re-add those pictures, it will be considered vandalism. You have been warned.

--Datang (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ITSDIVISIVE

I don't see any response yet on the talk page. I'll wait awhile though. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't likely something that you're going to have hordes of editors jumping to discuss with you seconds after you post to the talk page. There may even be no other editors who comment about this. However, per WP:BRD, discussion is the "next step". I'll leave a comment there myself in a little while. - jc37 01:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. It has only been a few hours. I did have further thoughts on this I'll add anyway. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

history check?

Just out of curiosity, how did you find out so quickly when I started with the project? I usually surf through pages and pages of contribution history to find out when someone started. Is there a report that I don't know about? Thanks. Rossami (talk)

Pity. That's how I do it, too. I was hoping there was an easier way. By the way, I am curious how you decided that I was female. (Because you are wrong, though I have been very careful never to provide any overt clues one way or the other.) Thanks for the feedback. Rossami (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Silence implies consent

You reverte my reversion. Mine was not a rewrite, but a reversion of today's rewrite by Kim Bruning. Are you really trying to get back to what was eveolving, or supporting the big changes that Kim made without discussion. Maybe it would be better not to worry too much about what is up there now, and just talk out our concerns att he talk page. My concern is not over emphasizing the concept. I have seen it abused, where special interest groups try to adopt guidance or process pages on the sly, and then claim that nobody objected. I don't object to silence equalling consent where adequate exposure was sought. Clearly what is reasonable varies among articles and policies. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops

I just tagged it as a proposal. I see that you have tried to find a middle ground with a custom tag, but I think that it is dangerous to be creating categories which don't exist at the Policies and guideline page, where there are the descritpions of policies, guidelines and essays. A new category should be discussed there. I think that this really is a proposal to supplement a policy page and should be advertised at the pump and discussed. Essay or proposal, I'll support your choice either way. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Have fun and good luck. Thanks for your feedback. I'll leave the tag alone, but posted a similar message at the talk page, so we'll see what happens. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat

I've mentioned your name here but I'm not asking you to involve yourself immediately. PR^talk 11:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC) PS - I fear that, however much you want to distance yourself, you will become involved, see this. PR^talk

Oh, man, I'm too hungover for this today, amigo. I don't think I'd be in the mood to get into yet another discussion with Jaak involving the Battle of Jenin even if I wasn't. At this point, I'm happy to let the ArbCom play out and just revisit these articles in 6-8 weeks. WP:TIND. later, Kendrick7^talk 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're excused. However, it does appear there's pretty gross abuse of WP policy going on here, and I wanted you to know I thought the principles and values of the project were worth defending. PR^talk 18:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The blocking admin

I've gone ahead and posted to David's user talk. If you've ever taken a day or two away and been surprised by how much the heat got turned up, I hope you'll understand. Let's assume the best. Durova^Charge! 06:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

174.237.224.142 (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Im–== Image:Caravan_Arish.JPG listed for deletion == An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Caravan_Arish.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kendrick, very decent of you to welcome me so nicely. However this IP is not mine so I might not be here next time you post to me.82.6.29.26 (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

crticism is not anti

When someone criticise religion, it do not become anti. If you cannot understand the logic, then read the article Anti-capitalism and Critique of capitalism. Anti means Against, opposed to, and criticism means The act of criticising; a critical judgment passed or expressed; a critical observation or detailed examination and review; a critique; animadversion; censure. Crtical obeservation and opposition are not same. Crtical obeservation comes through extensive research, fact findings. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And I am not saying Anti-X religion topics more properly belong in something like Category:Opposition to religion, anti is discrimination, so they should belong in discrimination category. Crticism is not discrimination. --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The category you created Category:Opposition to religion is inappropriate. Anti is good under Category:Discrimination. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-X or Anti-Y religions are good enough in Category:Religious persecution. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then it is good in discrimination category. Or you can create Category:Religious discrimination. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Religious discrimination will be good. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made Category:Religious discrimination a separate category under Category:Discrimination. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Religious persecution can be a sub-category of Category:Religious discrimination. However not sure of it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Oldcfd

A tag has been placed on Template:Oldcfd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

American Leadership Project

A tag has been placed on American Leadership Project, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of American Leadership Project 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 help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Runnynose47 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Online magazine and Namebase

That's an interesting resource. How long and detailed is the article? And next question, can you possibly scan a copy for me to look at? Thanks, JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Dodd

This kind of edit summary is grossly inappropriate. Edit warring is too. You shouldn't be doing either of those things. WilyD 14:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Naw, there's a long running dispute where a couple of editors keep trying to insert tangentially related images and the like that don't serve any encyclopaedic purpose. Take a look at what's being continually removed/inserted - there's no actual content in it. Labelling it vandalism is a clear breach of NPA, and simply untolerable behaviour. I'm fairly sure once Dodd campaign workers stop watching it, it'll end up at the appropriate encyclopaedic version you keep reverting against, but in the meantime if you continue to slag good editors with baseless personal attacks, I will have to take steps to prevent it beyond asking nicely. Cheers, WilyD 19:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not positive who's pushing for the inclusion of irrelevant material, but I more or less set up the previous version after complaints about POV pushing at AN/I. If you're concerned it's some issues relating to the relevant election, I've really got no problem with waiting until after it's decided to try to restore the appropriate version. But I suspect some "immeadiatists" may not be so patient, and you really mustn't continue to hurl insults at them. WilyD 02:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Poker category

I noticed your edit summary when recreating Category:Wikipedians who play poker, so thought I'd drop you a note: the relevant CFD discussion is available here. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You may consider creating Category:Wikipedian poker players or Category:Wikipedian professional poker players if it's an occupational affiliation you wish to express. Otherwise, the reasons for deletion are laid out in the deletion discussion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer and Gothic Chess

OK, I noticed that you restored the reference to Gothic Chess, pointing out you felt this was resolved last December. Let's look at last December's discussion. As I recall, you were the only one, besides editors whose contributions to Wikipedia have consisted only of adding pro-Gothic Chess content, who supported mentioning Gothic Chess on Bobby Fischer. I don't think it belongs; it was not part of Fischer's life. It was a big part of Ed Trice's life, so why not put the relevant content in that article. Just to clarify (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I noticed you added this again. Consensus is pretty firm that Bobby Fischer never talked about this, hence it wasn't a part of his life. The actual events are notable enough to be included in the Susan Polgar and/or Ed Trice articles, however (Susan did blog about it, and Ed, of course, made public comments about it). Just to clarify (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking at Talk:Bobby Fischer I think it's pretty clear that the consensus is against including the Gothic Chess material. Do you agree the consensus is against having the Gothic Chess mention in Bobby Fischer? Since the consensus was just as unanimous last fall, yet you thought there was no clear consensus, I want to make sure you can see the consensus now. Just to clarify (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your message and for clarifying your position. The reason I brought it up is because, every time the IP (or a SPA) tries to vandalize Bobby Fischer with inappropriate promotional matetrial, I don't want to see it become a drawn-out edit war where we have to come up with consensus to smack the IP/SPA yet again. I appreciate your contributions to the Wikipedia, and your willingness to communicate with us. Just to clarify (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vaughn

The deleted article is about a professional wrestler. Just write the article on the journalist; & put a note on the talk page that its a different person than the deleted article. DGG (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)