User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/9

My last wikibreak

For someone taking a Wikibreak, Kendrick7 sure is doing a lot of editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.77.167 (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only duck my head in occasionally, anon. In particular, I can't be bothered with any policy maintenance until the summer at least and can only hope my fellow partisans can pick up the slack where necessary. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ralph Kauzlarich

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ralph Kauzlarich. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Kauzlarich (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR Violation

If you revert one more time you will be in violation of the WP:3RR bright line rule. I suggest you avoid doing that. Breein1007 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Hi, the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't a civil war. It isn't a conflict within a single nation state. It's regarded as 'an international armed conflict' rather than a 'non-international armed conflict'. As far as I'm aware both the UN and Israel along with many other parties treat the conflict as 'an international armed conflict' from the legal perspective. In any case, edit warring on an article covered by discretionary sanctions is a bad idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are grasping at straws and that to maintain that this matter is a mere dispute is to sweep the true nature of the conflict under the rug. A "dispute" is something you have over a parking ticket or a sandwich shop that has screwed up your order. The historical definition of civil war is merely a conflict among a contiguous group of cities (the "civil" is from the Latin "civis" meaning city or town). FYI -- I was a strong advocate for those sanctions when that case was before ARBCOM, since, well, both sides of this civil war have their partisans, etc. But it's like they say about addicts, the first step is admitting you have a problem, and I understand why certain parties don't want to admit the true nature of the situation. That shouldn't be wikipedia's concern though. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not grasping at anything. The true nature of the conflict isn't relevant. It's about how reliable sources describe it and the sources regard it as an international armed conflict rather than a non-international armed conflict. You can easily find sources yourself. It isn't an unimportant distinction because it has major implications when it comes to Israel's obligations with respect to international law e.g. the illegal transportation of Palestinian prisoners out of a territories held under belligerent occupation (and recognised as being under belligerent occupation by the Supreme Court of Israel in the case of the West Bank) and imprisoned in Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive1

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 is currently under peer review. As a frequent editor of similar articles, your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carben carving.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Carben carving.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.

Name of US boats

The source says the names are Challenger 1 and Challenger 1I. Read the source first before doing these reverts. As American as Apple Pie GaussianCopula (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Kendrick. Trust me, I did a triple-take on the names until I was sure it was not a typo. To be honest, I think it might be a typo but since the rest of it is written in perfect English, maybe they just did something "original" to cause us some wikipain. : ) GaussianCopula (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert/blanking section at Gaza flotilla clash/incident

Do not blank sections. Do not revert changes made based on consensus on talk pages. Do not refer to reactions articles as "POV forks" - they exist simply to contain lists of comments made by notable people. Do not edit in ways which are adversarial, and without discussing the issue first on the talk page. Commenting your edits, however, is always a good thing. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about this. Do this not. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken on two counts. One, there is no issue of "POV forking." See the WP:POVFORK page - the term means something entirely different. Arguably, because international responses are largely condemnatory, the concept may be confusing to some. It appears as if you've ignored my explanation above about the purpose of these lists. Two, we don't leave blank sections, even if the text is a little redundant. The solution here is to select the major international commentators relevant to the issue. If you want to argue that some don't belong, make that argument on the talk page. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific issues about whom to include, discuss them on the talk page first. Your adversarial approach is approaching a negative consequence. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have once again reverted changes that were discussed at length in the Talk section. Please stop. You are welcome to participate and add your voice to the discussion. Zuchinni one (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. You are absolutely right I should have linked to the change. This is what I was referring to ... in the International Reaction section "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&diff=365390901&oldid=365390821"

There had been an ongoing debate about that section in the Talk and you changed what we were working on without referencing that you were changing that section. Zuchinni one (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries ... tech problems happen to us all :) Zuchinni one (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience

I'm new to helping out Wikipedia, and was in a hurry (busy time). I apologize for the delay in addressing my editing deficiency.WikiZambino (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Gaza flotilla raid appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. There is an entire article about Legal assessments of the raid. Some opinions say it is legal, some disagree. Marokwitz (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Scott Ashjian

I have nominated Scott Ashjian, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Ashjian. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re List of Proverbial Phrases

Interesting isn't it. This resulted from the demand by another editor that every entry in the list be sourced or it would be removed. All the entries are thus sourced.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Clinton

Thank you for the thoughtful words! I'm expanding the "wedding" section in the Chelsea Clinton article and could use some help. Come on over! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Schimmel

Hi Kendrick7

Please review the instructions for the {{recent death}} template—a template that is sensationalist and should be avoided unless truly necessary. It notes that the template is for use when there is extremely high edit frequency. Per the numeric guideline (100 editors per day), this has never been the case for this article. Even with a much lower threshold, it is clear that the template is not now applicable (even if one were to conclude that it had been warranted 24 hours ago). A quick review of the edit summaries in the article history would have demonstrated that other editors had come to that explicit conclusion before you re-added the template.

Rgds, ^Bongo_matic 03:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, but per WP:CREEP, I can't recall the last time I bothered to read a template's instructions. What should be done is to deprecate {{recent death}} in favor of a template for actively-edited articles -- which probably exists(??) but I just woke up. Anyway, this would be way more effective that lecturing people for not reading the fine print! -- Kendrick7^talk 17:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lecture (it wasn't intended to be a scold!) isn't for not reading the fine print, it's for not reviewing the (very recent) edit summaries. I agree that deprecating the template would be a good idea, but I have no idea what appetite there would be to do so. I keep an eye out for inappropriately tagged articles, remove the tag, and leave a clear edit summary explaining the rationale. Usually works. ^Bongo_matic 00:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review WP:COATRACK

From a WP:BLP stand point it is irresponsible to create Terry Jones (pastor)‎ article Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why his biography would be a coatrack. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7 you need to listen to what the Admins are communicating to you Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, no reason for me to start now. I'm sure the janitors will sort this all out eventually. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being uncivil, this a collaborative project. One should act responsibly and not expect people to clean up after you Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated links proposal

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. I'm staying out of MOS wars. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment placed here because it is off-topic from Handegg

There are indeed far more important things to be worried about. I myself tend to defend IP editing, because by far most of it is constructive, or no worse than edits also being made by editors with easy-to-remember names. On the particular topic of "funny stuff found on the internet", it's regrettably true that IPs as a general body don't tend to do very well, because they are usually casual editors and not engaged with the community. For instance, my first edit to Wikipedia was as an IP, and it was vandalism of Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was not even original vandalism, but something that had been requested elsewhere. On such topics, I do tend to give IP edits strict scrutiny. In the meantime, any editor who is working to dispel the "IPs are all evil vandals" myth has my support, since of course they most often are not. Always good to have a reminder, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loki's Wager

Hi. One of the references you added [1] for Loki's Wager as a fallacy (Jenicek, Milos (2010). "Appendix B: List of fallacies". Medical Error and Harm: Understanding, Prevention, and Control. Taylor & Francis. p. 323) is a book published in 2010 that uses a one sentence definition that is an identical word for word and comma for comma copy [2] of what was on Wikipedia for four years prior to the book's publication. It's a copy of your own wording that you settled on in 2006 [3], a few of edits after you initially created the article with a slightly different wording [4]. That has to be an example of the book copying Wikipedia's definition rather than the book being an independent source for the definition (because it can't have obtained the wording from where you used as your initial source in 2006, as the edit summary indicates you created and evolved the initial wording yourself: "that's the word I was looking for"). I can't find a copy of the second source you added; can you have a look and see what the wording on it is (Mills, Michael S. (2010). Concise Handbook of Literary and Rhetorical Terms. Estep-Nichols. p. 126.)? Brumski (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You Called It

Reading through the comments of the original poll for a trial, and I do have to say you called it pretty well, though not necessarily for the reasons you listed. "Flagged protection is a bureaucratic disaster in the making". It's hard to believe that dicussion was over 2 years ago. --nn123645 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
Lionel (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday

I just put your name under mine since you deserve more credit than me and I am going to get a DYK credit. In terms of the article, we have to follow WP:LEAD conventions, which means rearranging it for 4 paragraphs or less and working all alternate names in to the first paragraph for bolding. I will try another way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find right now is Wikipedia:LEAD#Alternative_names.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not okay

This edit summary is not okay; in fact, it borders on a personal attack. Please do not repeat this. Risker (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was absolutely WP:POINTy, please don't repeat it. if you have problems with a specific article (History_of_Religion), then bring up the problems in its talk page. Do not go and edit a policy page only to address your specific problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing both of the above comments. Please do not do anything like this again. Your reference on the talk page to Slimvirgin (talk · contribs) also seems WP:POINTy. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendrick. Judaism is cited indirectly in History_of_Religion#Axial_age, in "including monotheism in Persia and Canaan". The main article of the section, Axial age, explicitly cites Judaism.

@Kendrick. Please take this advice into account: when editing wikipedia, the most important goal is that the articles are improved. Everything else is just a means for this goal. Stuff like civility, no personal attacks, no legal threats, etc was crammed in later because all large internet communities need it in order to avoid exploding. Making long discussions about theoretical points that don't result in improvements to articles will eventually result in your blocking. Idem for repeatedly making POINTy edits that don't result in significant improvements to articles. Always take into final that the final goal is actually writing an encyclopedia, not making sterile arguments about how it should be written. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Risker, but if the project is now dedicated to persecuting minorities by declaring their POVs worthless and un-encyclopedic, I won't stand for it. I would hope that Slim, an old time frenemy of mine but still an editor I whole-heartedly respect, might sincerely follow my reasoning -- Kendrick7^talk 06:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, Kendrick7, and I don't see where SlimVirgin comes into this at all; if you want to send SlimVirgin a message, her talk page is open and I believe she has email enabled. As far as I can see, the only person being persecuted was the one who was reverting your non-consensual attempt to change a significant policy. Risker (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for United States v. Scheinberg

On 30 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Scheinberg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that on April 15, 2011, United States v. Scheinberg resulted in the end of online poker play for United States residents on the three online poker sites that account for approximately 95% of the market? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sisterlinks-author

Template:Sisterlinks-author has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money Laundering revert

Hi Kendrick:

Just wanted to drop you a friendly note to let you know that I reverted your definition of money laundering. Take a look at the discussion page for my rationale. Happy to discuss it with you if you think I am out of line, but I think that the weight of the authorities is for a more narrow definition, rather than the broader one that "How Stuff Works" uses.

Wiki33139 (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dr. Whooves (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You needed to 'plate me for reverting one editor? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do not own articles

Kendrick7, while I realize you have contributed much more than I ever have, please do not refer to articles as "your own", re. Troy Davis. Frank0051 (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger strike vs Guantánamo Bay hunger strikes

Regarding your note at Talk:Hunger strike, I'm asking for help cleaning up Hunger strike, where the Guantánamo Bay information may be drastically reduced in size.

Has Guantánamo Bay hunger strikes improved to the point where this is no longer a concern?

If you have thoughts on how to improve Hunger strike, I'd appreciate your suggestions.

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon military analyst program

Need to steer clear of this issue due to potential conflict of interest; but you may want to review recent reporting and check to see if the article needs updating.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/3/senator-pushes-for-last-word-on-bush-era-war-brief/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/24/ig-bush-era-pentagon-officials-cleared-wrongdoing/?page=all

Nice article. Coldplay3332 (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:1829 half dime v2 obv.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1829 half dime v2 obv.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Sreejith K (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:1796 half dime v01 rev.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:1796 half dime v01 rev.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.