User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/6

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience, 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 Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience. Andjam (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I'd like to send you an email but your email isn't enabled at present. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply going to observe that if you are going to argue for that you might as well make clear that barring that you are also in favor of keeping the redirect. Otherwise your comment is just tilting at windmills. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Vandalism

I'd prefer if you did not label my edits vandalism... Thanks. -- lucasbfr talk 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits are not vandalism. You are way out of line here. -- lucasbfr talk 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on talk:Daniel Brandt, apparently violating WP:POINT, and describing good-faith edits by long-standing contributors as vandalism. That and completely failing to understand why what you were doing was wrong, which is the major problem here. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry you don't see why this is vandalism and an attempt to generate discussion on an appropriate encyclopedic article here. I'll take this up with you tomorrow though, as reverting vandalism isn't edit warring, and being blocked by one of the vandals is simply an added layer of absurdity. -- Kendrick7talk 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent comment on the DRV

I'd strongly advise you not to attempt that at this point in time. It is at this point extremely unlikely that you will get a consensus for such any restoration at this point in time. Right now, I would strongly advise you to focus on the redirect. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't think any attempted workshop will be successful at this point in time, and many will likely see it as disruptive even if it is in good faith. At this point in time, there are many other articles to work on and the chance of success with that one may change in the future. But right now, that isn't likely be very helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join date

I noticed your userbox and I was wondering if you knew how I could find out for certain when I joined Wikipedia (not my first edit). I asked about it here, but nobody knew how. I'd appreciate any help! :) --Alexc3 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on an unrelated note, I came across your userpage because of your edit to MassResistance. Someone else reverted you, but I thought I should explain why that text is the way it is. It says MassResistance is opposed to teaching students to tolerate homosexuality, not homosexuals (if the latter is the case, I'm not aware of it), and I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it than that. "Accept" feels biased; tolerate just felt like the best, most neutral word, although it also gives one the sense that homosexuality is something bad, like a bad tasting medicine, that one needs to tolerate. Nevertheless, I think "tolerate" is the best word to use. And I'm not sure why you'd delete the thing about the SPLC identifying MassResistance as an anti-gay hate group. SPLC is a very notable organization, and its view is worth noting, as long as we say the SPLC has identified MassResistance as an anti-gay hate group, not MassResistance is an anti-gay hate group. Sorry if any of my message is a bit incoherent; I'm pretty exhausted from school right now. --Alexc3 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to bother them with something that's really not important, so I'll just stick with my first edit as my join date. Thanks! I wouldn't say they label everyone they disagree with as a hate group (they only list 9 anti-gay hate groups in all of the U.S., while they list a bunch of white nationalist hate groups). I don't see anything in WP:SOAP that says we can't note the opinion of a highly notable organization if it isn't referenced by a third party and I don't think that should be a prerequisite for noting that the SPLC considers MR to be a hate group (although I can see why one would argue that if the opinion is truly notable, there should be a notable 3rd party that references it), but from a quick Google search I found that the SPLC's views are referenced in the New York Times and the Washington Post, albeit, not about MassResistance. Probably because MassResistance isn't very notable, unlike the KKK, for example. I hope this clarifies things. :) --Alexc3 (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says, "This log goes back reliably to approximately June of 2006, though it contains accounts created earlier back to September 2005." My first edit was in April 2005, so I definitely joined before September 2005. Thanks a bunch anyway! :) --Alexc3 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource email notifications

Hi, after a proposal to enable email notification, Wikisource is now able to notify you of any changes to pages on your watchlist and/or changes to your talk page. In order to take advantage of these features, you need to enabled them in your Wikisource preferences. --John Vandenberg (chat) 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Pentagon message machine

I have nominated Pentagon message machine, 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/Pentagon message machine. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Lemmey (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi Kendrick, I left a comment on the talk page, though I don't know how helpful it will be. SlimVirgin talk|edits 05:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting

Quoting sources is not a copyright violation. Quoting sources is normal scholarly procedure. Embed the quote in quotation marks, attribute it, and send me a link so I can monitor the issue. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1]. Thanks. I hate the way ANI disappears so quickly. My latest idea is that pages ahould be *started* on the archive, with ANI just pointing to the current archive... William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

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/CAMERA lobbying/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/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Strange Disconnects" on PIR Wiki

This is a talk page, and is the place for discussion. What possible motive do you have for deletion? It's not like the PIR page is overly cluttered, and it's not like the piece in question is even posted on the main wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.252.17 (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

You haven't come across any sources that indicate that the Brandt in Daniel Brandt isn't quite his official name, have you? Difficult to have a biography where we know little about the subject's real name. John Nevard (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, rather lax of me, I should have at least picked up on the court case. I guess the edit here from a .snantx. DSL connection is probably some other guy called Brant, not Brandt trying to put the CIA assasins onto the wrong trail. John Nevard (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

It's interesting to see the Hezbollah userbox on your userpage as I'm sure you know someone was blocked almost a year ago because of controversy surrounding the userbox. Were you involved? FiveRupees (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox in question. FiveRupees (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other Christians have to be considered. 10% to 15% of Christians, if not more, support the Marada movement, the SSNP and the Communist Party especially the Greek Orthodox. I'm going to revert your edit because if implies that Aoun alone represents the Christians in the opposition. FiveRupees (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone in Lebanon agrees that most Christians support Aoun. If we consider the other parties, the overwhelming majority of Christians support the opposition. Aoun has the largest Christian bloc in parliament and most Christians voted for him, and had it not been for Sunni votes who brought Hariri's Kataeb and Lebanese Forces allies to parliament, he might had control over half the parliament. FiveRupees (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. FiveRupees (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Kendrick.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I am especially thankful for your appraisal, as I know we have differing points-of-view on various topics, and I appreciate your judgment that I do my best to uphold wiki policy and guideline. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Constantin C. Giurescu

A tag has been placed on Constantin C. Giurescu 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 indicate 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 page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. DarkAudit (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The standardness of "Who's who"

You make some very good points, but I'd argue that you're reading too much into the principle itself. It doesn't assert that people with the same opinions are the same person—merely that:

In such cases, remedies may be based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

(emphasis mine). The principle is not, in other words, any deeply philosophical statement of truth, but rather a description of our pragmatic approach to cases of multi-user disruption. We quite simply don't have the resources to deal with each and every disruptive editor as though they were completely unrelated. If we ban editor X for some particular form of disruption, and a week later editor Y appears and engages in that same disruption, it is entirely possible that X and Y are merely people with the same strongly-held opinion; but, given the ease of creating sockpuppets and recruiting proxies, it would be untenable for us to proceed as though that were the case.

The net effect is only that disruption of a known sort will be dealt with slightly more expediently than more original disruption; but, in either case, it is similar disruptive editing, rather than mere similarity of opinion, that is the determining factor. Kirill (prof) 13:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gazan edit

I'm undoing your edit on Gazan. Google "Gazan, Saudi Arabia -Israel" if you want to see some examples of its use. Funkmaster 801 (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up

I'm sure you have a watchlist same as me, but in case you missed it, I mentioned you here. Anyway, I said I would let you know and now I have. Best wishes, --John (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP.

I've restored the semi-protection. · AndonicO Engage. 21:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. · AndonicO Engage. 22:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism

I have nominated Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism, 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/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

no:Mal:Slettnom Sceptre (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Burleigh Taylor Wilkins

A tag has been placed on Burleigh Taylor Wilkins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Fleetflame 03:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving thread from "Allegations" talk page to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism

Sorry, but that was really a terrible decision. If I had wanted to start that thread on the Japan section at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism I would have done so. Yes, I should have noted the discussion on the other article's talk page but that oversight would have been easy to remedy. The point of starting that thread was to have a focused discussion on one issue among people who are working on that article. One of the last things I would want is for it to be a part of the centralized discussion on "terrorism," though I support such a discussion taking place. It is generally considered very bad form to alter, delete, or move the article talk page comments of another editor. At the very least you might have left a note on my talk page before you decided to do that, rather than taking the initiative to transfer them (Jehochman did not tell you "move these comments to a new central page," he said "start the centralized terrorism discussion" which is a completely separate matter). I'd rather not "wheel war" over this as they say in admin speak, so I'm asking you to move the thread about Japan back to where it was started. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't you!

Hi Kendrick. You were always one of my favorite Wikipedians. To be honest, I never even saw your reply until today, so it was definitely not you. Were you ever a fan of Dynasty? Right now I feel a bit like Alexis when she showed up at Blake's murder trial to give evidence against him! Greetings, Jeffpw (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Elena Lappin

I'll do you one better: I've restored the article. Happy editing! east.718 at 04:15, May 28, 2008

I'd appreciate it if you kept an eye on the article: the person is of somewhat marginal notability, and I originally deleted the article at the subject's behest. I've changed my mind on the notability issue, but please do make sure the article doesn't become vandalized or an article that only describes unfortunate events in her life. east.718 at 06:11, May 29, 2008

Notification

As one of the people who do like me (I think), I promised to invite two that do and two that do not, I am informing you of my appeal: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FSevenOfDiamonds. Your comments, negative or positive are welcome. - I Write Stuff / SevenOfDiamonds

PR, Baruch Kaplan etc.

I pointed out another source, the Italian human rights group, in my comments on PR's page. Seems to me to be near what you asked for.John Z (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of whether PR's sources are wikipedia reliable - they're probably not, I disagree about it being fax lore; people don't tend to lie so bald-facedly and such folklore doesn't usually have a clear source and claimed derivation - Yiddish transcript of taped interview. Problems are more like broken telephone. Looking at the history here, I note that Zero0000 seemed to think the JAZ version was authentic. Hasn't been around so can't ask him what he thinks of it now. And I note Itzse seems to think NK has "doctored", rather than fabricated the interview. The reason why nobody has gone to the trouble may be because there is nothing very surprising, something the Italian writer seems to understand too. At that time and place, religiousness and Zionism were usually inversely propoportional. My point was that I still think a block, without warning, was inappropriate; it is not what is recommended in WP:DE, which is to take it to RS/N; I looked for it there and couldn't find it. People seem to be conflating several issues, NK's extremism, NK's honesty, the veracity of a document, its "reliability" and its appropriateness here. Regards,John Z (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks...

sorry it's taken a bit of time for me to swing by and say thanks for your 'real life' barnstar (although shouldn't it really arrive in the mail? hmmmm......) - are we going to be able to persuade you along at any point for one of these chit chats? - it'd be cool to say 'hi'! Hope you're good regardless! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:I Write Stuff

I was going to ask you to stop re-adding the edits of a banned user; but I see that MastCell has now protected the page, so you can't. But all the same: like or not, editors are allow to express themselves on their own talk pages is wrong; banned editors aren't. Wiki is not a soapbox, and that applies particularly to the banned William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for the welcome-anon. I think you've welcomed me on a few different dynamic IPs now, so it seemed time to thank you for your friendliness. It does make a difference. 86.44.28.52 (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008

As it seems the primary editor of this article has been blocked, I see you've made some significant contributions to the article and have come to tell you that the editing history of the article is very troubling. It seems an individual is using different accounts to delete the article bit by bit. I am watching the article now, and I believe that as a major contributer to the article, you'd have some interest in stopping these disruptive attempts. Thank you.--William Saturn (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For restoring my comments.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential campaign article

It's not clear either way. Neither are vandalised versions, but you need to discuss this on the talk page. Several people have reverted your version, and complained to me about it on the talk page. Therefore, if you are unhappy with the version as it stands, I suggest you file a request for comment on the talk page to get outside opinions. This is also to stop the edit war that has commenced. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know, I'm completely uninvolved; I just pressed the buttons. I understand your frustration because I've been there a few times. :) But I strongly suggest dispute resolution. That way, all new opinions will be neutral and uninvolved, and consensus can be better established for either version. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection ended

Protection ended on the Dodd article and still no valid explanation has been given for the removal of content. Why are the administrators involving themselves in this to help the person who wants to destroy the article by protecting the blanked version rather than the GA version?--William Saturn (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For you

The Editor's Barnstar
It was interesting working with you on Pentagon military analyst program, and overall you did an excellent job. All the concerns from the AfD have been allayed, and it certainly reads from an NPOV. The images are a nice encyclopedic addition. MrPrada (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sinclair

I put the material in my sandbox, if you're interested. Enigma message 03:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sinclair

No afd, but deleted three times by three different administrators and protected by a fourth (none of them me). I see you've reposted the article as Larry Wayne Sinclair. I'll leave it for now, but be prepared for someone else to delete again -- I think the better course would be to post at Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Larry Wayne Sinclair

I have nominated Larry Wayne Sinclair, 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/Larry Wayne Sinclair. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Tan | 39 14:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Larry Wayne Sinclair

A tag has been placed on Larry Wayne Sinclair, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sceptre (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note

As I look through my contribs at the end of the day, I think I'm coming across too strongly at the DRV for Sinclair - and upon reflection I feel I need to drop a note here to say that I don't mean anything I'm typing to be personally directed at you as a Wikipedian. At no time have I edited in a foul mood or meaning to be overly aggressive, but upon rereading my comments, I can see room for my words to be interpretted that way. Please know, that although you and I (obviously) completely disagree about this particular topic, I'm sure we'll both move past it, regardless of the outcome of the DRV, and continue to both be productive editors. I hold no ill-will towards you or your edits, I simply disagree with you is all. If there is anything that I typed that you felt was directed at you instead of at the article you've written, please let me know so I can retract, rephrase, or redact it. Have a good weekend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at your userpage, I know right now definitively that you and I have more in common than we differ. The world, as a whole, and in many ways, will always need more cowbell. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Irvine Housing Blog

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Irvine Housing Blog, 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Warning

I'm guessing that was an accident...lol. --William Saturn (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]