User talk:Kinneyboy90/Archive 2

; Archives
	21 May 2005 – 09 February 2006; 09 February 06 – 20 July 2006;

I am currently: Online

User Page

Userboxes

Talk

Email

Desk

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me, I will vote keep or move. Also added my name to the participants. Эйрон Кинни 04:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From va_girl2468

Thank you! Va girl2468 22:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxes

Thanks for the heads up...I will pass it on to any other userbox users I find. bcatt 19:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did something better, I commented directly to the purger. Canadianism 23:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you attempt this, however you are impolite and "politically incorrect". My nicely worded, civil letter, shouldn't cause too much backlash. Canadianism 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.Canadianism 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! Canadianism 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A New Idea to deal with the problem of User box deleting

We, quite simply, host our own on our page. The deletionist vandals would have quite a problem with that. Canadianism 00:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should check this out. Canadianism 10:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Ideas

You should add them to the bottom of mine, I'm hoping to get more collaboration, i'm sorry I just didn't make it more clear in the first place. Karm a fist 20:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll either wait or place there on your behalf. No rush. I'd just like a consensus, I apologize if there was any misunderstanding, but i'm placing new amendments at the bottom, and if enough people agree, I add them on. Karm a fist 21:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kentuckian

Hello Kinneyboy90! No I'm not a native, but I've lived in Lexington area for 23 years. My three kids grew up in KY, one was born in KY. So that makes it home for our family. I've done a little bit of work on Kentucky articles. Need to do more. Will see you around. regards, FloNight ^talk 02:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for signing my manifesto. Direct and comments, questions or concerns to my talk page or the manifesto's talk page. Thanks again. Also, look at the newsflash on my userpage, as well as MarkSweep's attempt to take it out in my page history. The Ungovernable Force 08:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith

KInneyboy90, thx for the reply on my page. I definitely would've assumed good faith, however in the history on Kelly's page, the user who added the "Dick" picture said he was "vandalizing" her page...so I took that term at facevalue. Netkinetic 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang vs. Islam

You emailed me saying...

You state on your userpage that you believe in the Big Bang theory, yet Islam obstructs that claim. How did you come up with that conclusion?

Thank you.

In my opinion, Islam and the Big Bang theory are not in conflict. Although many will say that interpretations of the Qur'an that explain the Big Bang were made after the theory was scientifically postulated, there are some versions in the Qur'an which heavily imply a similar idea (see About.com). If you don't find that convincing, take note that there is nothing in the Qur'an that would lead to the conclusion that the Big Bang could not have occurred. Creationism and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive. joturner 03:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Big bang is rubbish. --Scotteh 10:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Dylon

Yes, it is becoming increasingly absurd.

Jimbo does not care, he is too busy with his nerd groupies. --Rob McKay 08:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly like the Encyclopedia Dramatica despite it's offensive content. I think I will stop editing the encyclopedia, just browse. --Rob McKay 07:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Levitt AfD Discussion

Your presence is requested at the Steven Levitt deletion discussion. Wikipedia needs to be streamlined, and we can't possibly document every godless crackpot who comes up with some inane "theory". By creating articles on people who are out of touch with American values, we only give them a platform to preach their otherwise non-notable message from. Thanks for your time. :)

Peace in Christ, Steven Taylor 15:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was an invalid nomination and the AfD discussion is no longer active. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

A category you recently commented on (Category:Wikipedians that poop) has been listed for deletion. Please see it's discussion here. Thanks, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got you from the history list, saw now you were just copyediting an extra CR/LF, sorry to trouble you with this. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NimbleX

I replied to your message on my talk page AdamSmithee 07:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage

Thanks for fixing my grammer. I Love Plankton 03:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again I Love Plankton 03:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion log

The reason for closing a deletion is filled in by the closing Admin. It does not always carry over the reason for nomination given by the nominator, so if the deletion log doesn't give a reason, it was the closing Admin's fault, not the nominator's - they have no control over whether that was left blank. Take your complaints to the closing Admin. Just wanted to make sure you knew that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot now find any log which shows the nom's name. The closing Admin's name is shown. I thought there was a view which also showed the nominator, but cannot locate it. Apologies if I have added to the confusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment

Thank you for the recent compliment regarding my name, i.e. my username. I just invented the name "Guðsþegn" myself. Icelanders have a tendency to have compound names, especially patronyms of course, but also including compound given/Christian names. So for example, God's Thane --> Godsthane --> (in Icelandic or Old Norse) Guðsþegn. I was thinking about naming my son (if the Lord in his providence so gifts me) that name as well, perhaps as a middle name. Some other examples of compound given names and patronyms: Þorvaldur Eiríksson, Þorfinnur Karlsefni, Þórbergur Þórðarson, Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir, and Guðmundur Hagalín. Again, thanks. Feel free to use it for your son, as you mentioned. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 23:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Parham - Racist and Pentecostal Founder

http://ctlibrary.com/14569

"white leaders expressed regrets that their history has been tainted by openly racist attitudes. One historian, Cecil Robeck of Fuller Theological Seminary, presented a 71-page paper describing, among other prejudices, how an Assemblies of God presbyter justified segregation in the South by teaching that God intended the races to live separately. The "father of American Pentecostalism," Charles Parham, continued to endorse the Ku Klux Klan as late as 1927, Robeck said."

http://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_3/p_9.html

It would be amazing if these white pentecostal leaders would express regret over something that never happened? Charles Parham described the Azuza revival as a "darky camp meeting"

http://www.christianword.org/revival/fire.html (Rick Joyner)

Zaphnathpaaneah 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circular conclusion "Wikipedia article is biased against him, so it is not a legitimate source." based on the fact that the Wikipedia article cites information that paints him unfavorably. Do you have a reason why the Wikipedia article is biased against him? After I have presented the evidence to back the article up, I believe you should retract that statement. --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my page you claim that you could find no references. I do believe you are using the "ignore" strategy of discussion.

I gave you the references, and here is another. Charles Fox Parham - racist comments: The Dubious Legacy of Charles Parham: Racism and Cultural Insensitivities among Pentecostals Author: Anderson, Allan Source: Pneuma, Volume 27, Number 1, 2005, pp. 51-64(14) Publisher:Brill Academic Publishers

--Zaphnathpaaneah 04:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you Kinney! I'll wear in with pride. I'm especially proud of my contributions to Theater in the United States (and Theater in Kentucky in particular), and the Kentucky Congressional Districts, mostly because these are some of the most glaring holes. I've now moved to Ohio, so I'm trying to migrate my energies to that state, but my heart is still in Louisville (which is a featured article!). Thanks for all you do on the cleanup taskforce! All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was born and raised in Louisville. One of my earliest memories involves Central Park, and I used to volunteer at Actors Theatre. Have you seen the Bounty board, by the way? It seems like something you might be interested in. Best regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for correcting a category of mine [1]. You have a lot! ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay File:WikiThanks.jpg ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I tried to do ;-) ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA CydeComment

Please clarify what you mean by this: "Strong Oppose. This user is particularly vehement in eliminating userboxes from template namespace. Though some may need to go, he has listed templates for deletion without proper rationale and persistently dodges consensus. Anywhere I look in the delete log, he is always there, sometimes even leaving the delete summary blank." How is this even possible? It makes no sense on a RFA. Mike _{(T C)} 01:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I had to the same conversation with Karmafist, other way around, but I made it a userbox for it: It's ok to be a dumbass. Check my userpage if you want/steal it. Mike _{(T C)}

04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rampant deletionist?

That's funny, I always considered myself somewhat of an inclusionist. You can check my WP:AFD votes if you don't believe me. --Cyde Weys 01:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your favorite POTUS

You mentioned Dwight Eisenhower as your favorite American President. Have you seen the recent film "Why We Fight"? It expands on his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961.

I recommend you seeing it.

My ancestry

Hey Aaron.

RE your e-mail, I'm actually pretty much entirely English. My mum's about a quarter or an eighth Irish, but apart from that, I'm firmly rooted here. The reason I've been around so much is that my dad's in the army so we're posted around quite a bit. (The chalet in Évian was something we bought and later sold.) haz _(user talk)^e 08:25, 7 March 2006

P.S. Noticed that you have the Admin wannabe userbox on your user page. (Snap!) One thing I would say, having glanced at Interiot's tool using my shiny cactions script, is that you have relatively few Wikipedia namespace edits, especially in comparison to your User namespace edits. Things like voting on RfAs and AfDs can bolster Wikipedia namespace edits, as well as joining organisations such as WikiProjects and Esperanza. Good luck! haz _(user talk)^e 08:31, 7 March 2006

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New caction tool

I'm pleased to inform you that my caction tool v2 is now released. To update to the new version, replace the link to the old version in your monobook.js with

The reason I can't simply replace the old version is that the new one doesn't quite work for admins, and I'm still waiting for assistance before I completely roll it out.

Tell me what you think of it. If there are any bugs, then let me know, including your browser version in the report. Thanks, and I hope you like the new version! haz _(user talk)^e 16:11, 17 March 2006

The old version at Haza-w/Interiot2.js is being phased out. As of Wednesday it will not work. Please change to the new version. Thanks. haz (us e r talk) 13:50, 20 March 2006

Summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To a fellow Pentecostal holeeroler 13:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Terrill White[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kuttner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kuttner.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alotta misunderstanding

Hi Aaron, First I have to apologize for calling you Kinney. I didn't realize it is your last name. Second, it seems I misunderstood your comment (and I thought you misunderstood Raul!). I added my apologies at the Protocols talk page. BTW, I've sent an email msg. to mbeychok with an attempt to explain that it is encyclopedia's job to expose fraud, but didn't get any response. Oh well. Best regards, colleague. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky

Would you consider joining Wikipedia:Wikiproject Kentucky. --User:General Eisenhower

Thank you. General Eisenhower 21:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Sorghum jar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sorghum jar.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sue Anne 18:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megiddo POW count

With regard to your deletion of the POW numbers in the campaign box for the Battle of Megiddo (1918).

The numbers given for the Turkish forces (3000 cavalry, 32000 infantry) represent the "sabre" and "bayonet" strength. The difference between these totals and the "ration" strength can be accounted for by artillerymen, sappers, line of communication troops and the many small detachments scattered as Gendarmerie in the vilages and towns in the back area.

The figure of 75,000 prisoners is independently confirmed in Cyril Falls, Armageddon and B.H. Liddell Hart, History of the First World War. I have reinstated the POW numbers in the article, but I agree that they are potentially confusing if placed immediately below the front-line strength. I have therefore put the total at the end of the penultimate paragraph. HLGallon 19:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hitler wasn't a practicing Catholic. He quit Catholicism many years before becoming fuhrer and expressed a complete hatred of Catholicism. In public, like other non-practicing Catholics he occasionally played lipservice to his supposed Catholicism for political tactics; to win religious voters in elections. Privately he regarded Catholicism with contempt and wanted Catholicism destroyed. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 23:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.. Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He removed my warning [2]. Arbusto 21:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinneyboy90, please do not remove warnings from your Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Because they have a purpose, per various policies. The rule is, if you are warned for something and do it agasin, you can be blocked. If you remove the warning, that makes it harder for an admin to police - but the warning can be found in the Talk history, so you will just end up in worse trouble.

As to the edits and content, content disputes are resolved by discussion on Talk. There is always an alternative to reversion, which is not to revert, but to discuss. You might not like the edits, but repeatedly reverting or blanking is not the way to fix that. There are lots of methods of dispute resolution, and edit warring is not one of them. Just zis Guy you know? 22:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victims of the Night of the Long Knives

I was marking an empty category for deletion ... see Special:Uncategorizedcategories. That's so it will be properly deleted and not show up again next time. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey couldn't help but notice you're one of the only people listed under the category of "Wikipedians who listen to Black Sabbath", so I'm just dropping you a line to say what's up. --EMC 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree with you more on that "modern rock" stuff. Man, I seem to have more stuff in common with peers on Wikipedia than I do the people I meet in real life. For example, I just met somebody with the same birthday (day, month, and even year!) as me on Wikipedia. --EMC 00:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really noticed that your name is close to that of Aaron James McKinney: wow! No offense though. But hey, I'm also really interested in Christian eschatology (heavy reader of the "Left Behind" book series; even saw the movies, despite the fact that I'm not Christian). --EMC 00:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help

im new here i dont know how to take userboxes to my talk page like yours would you teach me?thank you.felisberto20:2322april2006

excuse me

hi .i want to start one article but i dont know where to edit.would you tell me?if you dont mind?Felisberto.2May2006(UTC)

thank you

excuse me if i made lose your precious time but i promise wont disturb you anymore.else thank you once more for assisting me from my begining.may the peace be with you.Felisberto5May2006(UTC)

You're welcome. Эйрон Кинни (t) 17:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler page

I saw that your contribution had been duplicated, but left it to you to remove it, as a courtesy to you. Despite the advice to "Be Bold", I try not to not remove material other editors contribute, if I know they are watching the page, and I do not object to the material as inappropriate to the article, even when the material gets duplicated or slightly corrupted. Drogo Underburrow 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV present on "Adolf Hitler"?

The Catholic apologists/revisionists have successfully removed all references to Hitler's having been a Roman Catholic, and his wikipage is apparently now protected, although there is no message to that effect. What are we going to do about it?? 216.194.60.148 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wide variety of things to take into consideration when responding to your comment, and several things for you to take into consideration when analyzing the Adolf Hitler article:

I am not anti-Catholic, though I disagree with much of their dogma, liturgy, rituals, etc. But if you look closely into my related edits to articles pertaining to Catholicism, and the Hitler talk page, you will notice I have made no accusations against Catholics, nor have I expressed any animosity or hatred towards Roman Catholics in any such manner, in any such case, within any of these pages. Half of my family is Roman Catholic, also.
Hitler was neither a true Roman Catholic, nor a Christian. Notwithstanding, he was still a professed Roman Catholic and Christian, though I scarcely consider him anything remotely Roman Catholic or a viable Christian.
These editors, Str1977, and maybe even Musical Linguist, have interpreted some other editors contributions (including mine) to the Hitler article to be anti-Catholic because we classify Hitler as a Catholic politician and individual. I can understand their taking offense to that, as Hitler was a very repugnant individual with bad tendencies (killing Jews, for example, as well as homosexuals, Roma, Freemasons, and Jehovah's Witnesses, and a select number of Christian opponents, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer). I don't know about other contributor's edits, but this is certainly not the case when examining my edits, as most of mine have been backed up with sources, and half a dozen citations.
Hitler's religious beliefs are ambiguous. No large number of people, or in our case, contributors, are going to agree on one point another makes about Hitler's religion. This will make writing an NPOV section of a Wikipedia article detailing his Faith (or the lack thereof) much more difficult and it is only natural we will confront difficulty. That is why every sentence we write under that heading much be backed up by academic sources, and even then, difficulty will be encountered.

Therefore, we are going "to do nothing about it". If this blatant vandalizing of cited sources continues, we will have no choice but to persist in our efforts to restore them, and perhaps even "file a complaint" to the Wikipedia hierarchy and clear up some of this confusion. I thank you for your concern and I do hope you will get an account on Wikipedia and inform me, so as to ensure our correspondence will make it to one another more efficiently. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kinneyboy,

Thanks for weighing in on this issue.

Let me first state that I in no way think you an anti-Catholic. I don't even need to look up your other contributions - I have no reason for believing you to be one. I also respect your disagreement with the Church on the religious field. That's a valid view to have.

Now, unfortunately I cannot hold the same view in regard to all contributors or rather posters on this issue. If you look up the edit histories of them you will immediately see a certain streak. (So much for my "interpretations".)

I actually agree with your statement "Hitler was neither a true Roman Catholic, nor a Christian. Notwithstanding, he was still a professed Roman Catholic and Christian, though I scarcely consider him anything remotely Roman Catholic or a viable Christian." in so much as he professed (or claimed, but that word is shunned on WP) to be a Christian. He was a Christian only in a very twisted way. I would reject calling him a Christian if it wasn't for NPOV policy.

To your list of people murdered on Hitler's behalf I'd like to add some thousands of Catholic priests, a fair percentage of Germany's clergy. Surely they were not killed merely on behalf of their religion but for opposition to the regime, but it is quite clear from Hitler's statements that he despised the Church and its teachings (and in contrast to what Gio says, you cannot be a bit Catholic - you either are a practicing Catholic (or a believing Catholic) or you are not).

I agree that Hitler's religious beliefs are and will remain ambiguous and, if I remember correctly, I even put that into the article. However, some things are quite clear: he was not a practicing Catholic as an adult. I agree that writing such a section is difficult and for more than reasons stated by you. We should have reference for everything in there and I for my part can say that I referenced everything I put in except of one bit I haven't yet looked up (I am still planning to but this conflict is preventing me). This bit actually says the same as a "Mein Kampf" quote Gio inserted (without proper reference), so it shouldn't be that controversial. However, I will look up my reference and then include it.

I also see no "blatant vandalizing of cited sources" on my part. I carefully explained all my edits on the talk page and mostly my complaints were either POV wording or repitition of already included stuff in different wording, or off-topic (this section is not about rendering the contents of one book but about substantial information). However, I can say that one editor especially targeted one piece of info I had posted and referenced (even taking the trouble of posting and translating the source) by deleting it.

Regarding your addition of Speer's quote, I have no objection of including it. Bytewerk has ammended it, which makes it even more relevant. However, this is my point about it. You added

"Speer claims Hitler remained a member of the Catholic church until his suicide, although he also noted that Hitler said "he had no real attachment to it."

If you scroll further up, you will find the following bit:

"he never formally or publicly left the church

So you see your information is already included. Also, right now it is placed at the end of the section and IMHO this isn't a good place a negative statement with no connection to the text immediately preceeding it.

One final point: You write "Speer claims Hitler remained ...". As I said "claim" is frowned upon WP as a "weasel word" (it connotes that the claim is bogus). I, in fact, don't think we need the Speer disclaimer at all in regard to Hitler's membership (Of course, we'd need it in regard to Bytewerk's addition) as it is an undisputable fact that Hitler never formally left the Church. He despised the Church and its doctrine, didn't attend Mass or received any sacraments, and didn't pay Church tax (but he didn't pay any taxes anyway) but he never formally left.

Please excuse my rather lengthy post (but I feel that one has to be explicit these days on WP). Digest it and get back to me, if you will. Str1977, 7 May 2006

Kinneyboy, I'd just like to assure you that I don't think you're anti-Catholic, and I welcome your presence at the Hitler article. I don't think I reverted anything you added, but reverts can sometimes be made because something is unnecessary, perhaps duplicated elsewhere in the article, or not sufficiently relevant to the topic. A revert certainly doesn't have to indicate suspicion that the other editor is acting in bad faith. I do, unfortunately, believe that another editor on that page is anti-Catholic, indeed, anti-Christian, as his contributions have shown that clearly since his arriveal — many attempts to insert anti-Christian bias into articles, — especially the Christianity article — and long posts on talk pages about how religion is superstitious mythology, and how Christianity can be compared to believing that the moon is made of cheese. So when I see this editor inserting stuff about Hitler being devout, I just think it follows the pattern he has shown throughout Wikipedia. But I don't in any way extend that suspicion to you. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kinneyboy, for your quick reply. I am sorry about that accusation a while back. Whatever reason I had for it (I had completely forgotten about it) is certainly disspelled by your posts here and on my talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celloists

Hi, I noticed you created Category:Celloists for Wikipedians who play Cello. You may want to change this to the correct term, Category:Wikipedian cellists. Bye. —Viriditas | Talk 20:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. According to the history of the category, you created Category:Celloists at 00:52, on 9 March 2006, however, you may not have realized that you had done so. I'm guessing you followed a red link and added content ("Wikipedians who play the cello") in effect, creating the category, even though the red link you followed may have been added on another page by someone else. Does that make sense? —Viriditas | Talk 02:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for getting back to me. —Viriditas | Talk 02:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

I just want to explain that Nietzsche is both an Anti-Wagnerite and was, before hand, a friend of Wagner. — ^ignis _scripta 03:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May userbox policy poll

Hi. You're a supporter of userboxes, and there's currently a policy poll going on about userboxes that might solve the speedy deletion issue. I encourage you to vote if you haven't already. Thank you. Dtm142 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ky Wiki

Will you join the Kentucky Wiki? General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Piłsudski

Thanks for your comments. I believe we can make this article a FA. If there is anything you think should be added, please let us know on the peer review or add it to the article :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to the article - it is always a pleasure to constructively work with others :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Unsalvagable leftwing soapbox article

Articles like this make the encyclopedia look bad--RCT 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. It would help if you elaborated. Эйрон Кинни (t) 04:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kinneyboy90! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 12:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag issue

Better explanation on the talk page for the article itself, but I also put in a basic explanation on my own talk page. Hope we can settle that quickly, as I have no particular problem with either. Tev 03:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Empire Article

The main article here is woefully inadequate, but I see that the History of Russia article has gained featured article status. If you have the time/interest, I would really appreciate some help to adapt some of the information on the Russian Empire into the main article. Tev 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Kinneyboy90/Archive 2, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 03:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey dude--Cowboy From Hell 22:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)DJ BatWave[reply]

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 06:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Reverts

Hi, Kinneyboy why you are reverting facts? Sorry I am from Germany my spelling might be not the best but you can correct it but please don't revert facts which are mainly unknown in the US.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.173.252.9 (talk • contribs)

hi thanks for your answer! I removed the wielun and frampol (poland) examples because both are small country side towns. thre destruction eas not part of a strategic area bombing. In Wielun for the attack was made by 29 stuka precision bombers on the beginnig of the campaign. he original target was the headquarter of a polnish division. this kind of a typical biltzkrieg style tactical military behanding strike, 2 hours before the mayor breakthrough the polnish frontlines 15 km away. its a difference to a strategic area bombing campaign targeting for example industrial targets in the hinterland.

yes no problem look on the military map (troop dispo.) in the poland campaign article. We should make a clear diifernce betwenn close air support operations and area bombing.

yes no problem look on the military map (troop dispo.) in the poland campaign article. We should make a clear diifernce betwenn close air support operations and area bombing. you can see on the ops. map that for example warsaw was completly suurounded by german troops inside the city were around 200.000 polnish soldiers (escaped from the bzura poket) defending it. the city mainly the outsikrts were bombend by artillerie and aircrafts in preparation to storm it. (destrution 10 % of all buildings mainly in the outskirts). the main destrution of warsaw was caused later by ss troops (burning down large areas in the center) during the getto jewish uprise and the second polnish uprise 1944 and the fhiting during the advance of the soviet troops.

Good for you

I'm fine thanks. You too? Wallie 22:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I always feel good and lucky too. We should all be happy that we now live in a world largely at peace. Wallie 19:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Hermannmueller.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

broken popups

Your popups are broken, see this edit: [3] Kevin_b_er 06:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your sig

Hmm... "Эйрон Кинни" -> "Ayron Kinney". To make the phonetic equivalent of "Aaron Kinney" -> "Эрон Кинни". The equivalent Russian first name would be "Aaрон Кинни". Either one of the latter makes some sense - but not what you have now. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnically Jewish, born and raised in Russia. I suggest "Aaрон Кинни". - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I am as American as you by now, no worries. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mussolini

I appreciate your work on the Mussolini article, but I oppose your cancellation of a statement about him being regarded as comical, other than evil, on POV grounds. I assume that you are not familiar with Italian comedians. In the talk page for the article you can find the reasons for my revert.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.36.87 (talk • contribs)

I removed the text. I don't support Mussolini in any way (I have only provided sources and cleaned up the article, I sourced the statements on his atheism and his death). And I'm not familiar with any comedy lampooning Mussolini. I do agree with you that many Italians probably regard him as an idiot, but I don't think it's encyclopedic or deserving of being mentioned in the article unless you can provide a source. Even with a source it would be a very bold statement to say the subject of an article is stupid. But if you want to reinsert it it's fine with me, I just thought it to be a little pov'ed at the time. I'm trying to promote this article to good, and eventually, featured article status and am focusing on editing it to that point. Maybe we can cooperate in making it better. Aaрон Кинни (t) 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original text wasn't written by me: I just substantiated it, then noting its disappearance I reinserted it. I would'n say that "the subject of the article is stupid", I just tried to explain why his reputation can be regarded as better that those of other dictators. You can't find a comedian in Italy or Germany making fun of Hitler, for obvious reasons: but when somebody in Italy makes an apparently vacuous statement with great rhetoric, it's not strange to see somebody thrusting out his chest and mocking the speaker in a booming voice resembling the speeches of Mussolini and the old "LUCE newsreels". Nobody would do that with Hitler's speeches.

"I'm trying to promote this article to good, and eventually, featured article status and am focusing on editing it to that point. Maybe we can cooperate in making it better."

Thank you, but I'm already too much involved with the Italian wiki ^__^ that's why I'm refraining from taking an account on en.wiki, nothing would stop me afterwards ^____^.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.36.87 (talk • contribs)

Mussolini again

This diff is the development of the version that ended up on this site. Rich Farmbrough 11:09 29 June 2006 (GMT).

Hi, no that's not what has happened. If you look at the diff tou will see changes like:

in northern Italy with him living in Gargnano. But he was little more than a puppet under the

this is identical to the JVL text

in northern Italy with him living in Gargnano. But he was little more than a puppet under the

The same applies to the other changes - our version of the common text has developed over several edits. Therefore ours is the original (discounting conspiracy theories). Rich Farmbrough 22:31 29 June 2006 (GMT).

Yes it's hard to tell. I would suggest you use whichever you consider the best text, on a piece by piece basis (if it's not to complex). Rich Farmbrough 22:37 29 June 2006 (GMT).

71.155.144.74

Hey Kinneyboy90, no, you don't need to warn him anymore. I blocked him for his persistent vandalism (see [4]). Cheers, Tangot a ngo 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Dear Kinneyboy, I recommend you to remove your nomination from the RfA list immediately. It is very malformed; you have placed an incorrent closing date, and you have completely omitted the Questions for the candidate section. I can help you reformulate your nomination if you wish; just let me know and I'll try my best. Cheers, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just give me 5 minutes and I'll get it ready, hun :) I'll msg you right back, k? Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hun, it appears that the nomination has been closed out by NSLE. I suggest you to start from scratch again - and follow every instruction ;) You should use the Kinneyboy90 2 page now, as the one that you made before is no longer valid. Before posting at the RfA list, let me know and I'll review it, k? I'll be around. Hugs, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I praise your wisdom and your patience, dear Aaron - and if you continue the path you're walking now, I have little doubt that you'll be an admin in no time. Perhaps you're right regarding the scrutiny part, as some people may have objected your edit count; and the stress a RfA that fails on the basis of edicountitis is not worth it. Once again, congratulations on your wise and prudent decision, and should you ever need my help, you can count on me any time. A big big hug, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 13:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thank you

Thank you!

Thank you, Aaron, for your support in my RfA. I am happy to be able to say that it has acheived a consenus of wikipedians, and that I will be assuming my new responsibilities immediately. I appreciate your trust and support, especially in that you took the time to investigate my record, as opposed to making a snap decision, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 00:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Srikeit_2

Hi there Aaron. You supported in the wrong RfA. Srikeit's first RfA was in May. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry about that. See, I find it a hassle to edit whole articles, and seeing as the RfA page is made up of smaller, less large sections, I usually type in (by hand, manually, without any references to aid me) "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/(name here)" so when I saw his RfA that's what I did, except I didn't notice and forgot to place the two there. Forgive me. Aaрон Кинни (t) 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel 123's RfA

Hi Kinney, I have just added your vote for what it's worth. I wasn't deliberately ignoring your edit, the software just didn't come up with an edit conflict as we were editing different parts of the article. See you around, Rje 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose by the letter of the law it shouldn't be counted, but as it made no difference to the final outcome I'm not going to remove it for bureaucracy's sake - you weren't to know I was going to close the request at that moment anyway. Rje 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]