User talk:Kendrick7

This editor is a Most Perfect Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain and Cigarette Burn.

Archive
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

WT:LINKLOVE, umm, no

I think that you misinterpret WT:LINKLOVE and its purpose. It does not sit alone among the policy and guidance, and looking to circumvent the blacklist is especially not meant to be the purpose of that guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited JournoList, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Candor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Professional courtesy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Profit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

AFD: Antisemitism in early Christianity

Someone removed the prod tag, so I set up an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in early Christianity--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just some friendly advice: It doesn't really do any good to try dragging editors into debates over their vote just because they voted Keep when you want them to vote Delete. People who pass through AfD for a minute or two, see what is there now and vote accordingly--no one likes to get badgered or dragged back for an argument that wastes time and just makes them bitter. It just clogs up the AfD and a lot of editors find such canvassing and badgering to be in poor taste. Place your vote (I notice you haven't voted yet), let other people place theirs. In a week or two, it will sort itself out--whether you argue with them or not. Let the lager yeast settle to the bottom of the beer barrel. OK? --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Rob Wyda

Nothing you have added meets GNG. We have nothing that says being a judge confers notability, and we have nothing that says military service confers notability. His personal anecdotes also don't make him notable. I could in fact make the case that all his local coverage was simply the result of publicity so he could retain an elected position.

However, all that aside, in the context of your comment, WP:NOTMEMORIAL means that we do not even consider the "grieving family" when looking at articles. Your argument is precisely not what Wikipedia's purpose is. Conversely, I'd say a 6.5 year-old article with lousy sources and no expansion is a prime candidate for AfD. If he was so important, where were you back then? Maybe, like me, you never noticed it until it was actually available a little more prominently. MSJapan (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rob Wyda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page District Judge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Guantanamo related articles

Greetings

The link you added to Jamil Ahmed Said Nassir is not an independent reliable source. Someone ported a snapshot of the then current version of this article to wikia. So it is a circular reference pointing back here. Sorry.

I am glad to have other people interested in working on the Guantanamo material. Realistically that work has to take into account the many {{afd}} on similar articles.

I don't know if I have introduced myself. I started almost all the articles on Guantanamo captives -- about 550 articles in the end. I started them mainly in 2006, when, frankly, the wikipedia's inclusion criteria was looser. So, they met the criteria, when I drafted them. There are about 2 dozen strong critics of my efforts out there, some of whom will say I have been a serial creator of articles that don't compliy with WP:BLP and other policies. I see that criticism as very unfair, as, without regard to whether the articles measure up to todays's standards, they measured up to the standards current when I started them.

In 2009 a contributor with a lot of energy came along, and devoted several thousand hours to the articles on this material. This should have been a great relief to me, as keeping those articles up those hundreds of articles to the current standards, as those standards grew more stringent, was going to be thousands of hours or work. Sadly, that person proved very hostile, and took pleasure in his success at impeding my every effort.

I think there are a couple of people interested in improving the coverage of this material. Assuming you are one of those people, can we discuss how best to do this within the time we have available to work on it? Could we:

1. Discuss how improved articles should look? I am not happy with the style I used in 2006.
2. Discuss which deleted or redirected articles would be the strongest candidates to restore to full article status?

There is a moribund wikiproject for terrorism. Perhaps this would be the best place to discuss this.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

At User:Geo Swan/Wittes breakdown I have information that can be plugged into restored articles on any captive who was still in custody back in 2008. Challengers to covering Guantanamo material started to define the intelligence summaries prepared by OARDEC as "primary sources". I still don't agree with this interpretation, as they were prepared by a whole separate agency than the intelligence agencies that interrogated the captives, or looked at the physical evidence. I made my case for the interpretation that, as compilations and summaries of the work of individual at other agencies those summaries were, by definition, secondary sources. I made my best case at the reliable sources noticeboard, and that argument was not accepted. So User:Geo Swan/Wittes breakdown is based on a 99 page academic paper where scholars did their analysis of the meaning of the allegations -- that paper is unquestionably a "secondary source".

As per above the question now is how best to use it in a way that satisfies everyone -- including those who have challenged these articles.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jack T. Chick. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have found a Oxford University Press work that identifies Jack Chick as being anti-Catholic. StAnselm doesn't have a leg to stand on.--216.31.124.219 (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing, including edit warring at Jack T. Chick and multiple categories; tendentious editing; and harassing other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you asked...

Since you asked "What did I ever do to you?" - the comment "You have to be a unique sort of insane" may have something to do with it. I appreciated your apology here, but I thought it was a bit rich reverting on the basis that I hadn't sufficiently responded to the discussion on Talk:Jack T. Chick. To make these sorts of edits immediately after coming out of a block is rather appalling. StAnselm (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Substing templates

Hi! Just wanted to remind you that when you use a welcome template on someone's talkpage, that you should always substitute the template. (For example, you should use{{subst:welcome}} rather than {{welcome}}.) Cheers, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Al-Ameriki tribe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Ameriki tribe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameriki tribe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicholas Mevoli for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicholas Mevoli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Mevoli until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King of the Gypsies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English Travellers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

concern trolling

Please do not undo legitimate and consensus based edits, and please especially do not attempt to conceal your actions by calling such edits removal of concern trolling : eg [1] there was a broad-based consensus for this approach, and no-one has demonstrated that the broad community feels differently - and calling something like this 'trolling' is a misrepresentation and I consider it disruptive. If you really don't like that previous consensus , you're not alone, but the pathway has been laid out for you several times.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:StAnselm stalking

3 people have accused this user of stalking in the recent past. Since this is the case, and since this appears to be a habit with this user, do you think its a good idea for any of us 3 to seek further action against him? Pass a Method talk 23:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Walter John Raymond for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walter John Raymond is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter John Raymond until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection status on Fallujah

It was not me who initiated the semi-protect. I merely reverted back to the original status after pending changes trial ended. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Why should you ask me when it wasn't me who imposed it in the first place? The ball isn't on my court (and never was) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism category and Jack Chick

Kendrick7, I share your consternation about not putting Chick in the Anti-Catholic category. Is water wet? Is Hitler an antisemite? Is Jack Chick anti-Catholic? I think the other editors are trying to refer you to this discussion from two years ago: CfD: Bias categories. If you haven't read it through yet, I think you ought to. I've been analyzing it and have some observations I will share with you. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

CfD Bias categories 2011 February 9

Here are my comments on the CfD:

1) The proposer, Roscelese, did not propose banning the adding of individuals, organizations, media, etc. from the bias categories. Her proposal simply asked for consensus on making the bias categories uniform by taking a "unified approach" to them.

2) Roscelese herself does not !vote in favor of not listing "individuals, orgs, etc.".

3) Eighteen editors expressed an opinion on the "unified approach" proposal: Eleven supporting—Roscelese, CarolMooreDC, Good Ol'factory, dmcq, Kaldari, Dezidor, Joe Decker, Nick Levinson, Moni3, Geometry guy and SandyGeorgia; Seven opposing—Avi, Debresser, Rainbowofpeace, Gnangarra, Jayjg, Jack Cox and Ricardianman.

4) Of the eleven supporting !votes, six also supported banning individuals, orgs, etc., from the bias categories: CaroleMooreDC, Good Ol'factory, and Dezidor explicitly, and Nick Levinson, Moni3, and SandyGeorgia by recommending that the bias categories be deleted entirely. (Of the seven oppose !votes, none support banning individuals & orgs, etc.)

5) (The support !vote of dmcq is ambiguous: he says he approves of banning individuals, but appreciates having a "category of people convicted of anti-homosexual crimes".)

6) If you include the !vote of dmcq, there are seven !votes that support not naming individuals, orgs, etc., in bias categories.

7) Seven divided by eighteen is 39%, not even a simple majority of the !vote.

8) The finding by the closer, Timrollpickering, of "Consensus for a unified approach to these categories" is supportable—of eighteen !votes, eleven supported a "unified approach" (consistency is a good thing, right?).

9) The finding by the closer, Timrollpickering, of "most support to ban individuals & organisations", is manifestly incorrect and false—only six (or seven) out of eighteen editors expressed such support.

10) Any action taken on the basis of this manifestly erroneous claim of consensus (i.e. "most support to ban individuals & organisations") is surely invalid.

11) In addition, the closing admin had no warrant to make a determination on anything but the question posed by Roscelese: whether to take a unified approach to bias categories (and not on how to make the bias categories uniform). --71.178.50.222 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

it's an interesting analysis but it's also water long under the bridge, and current practice has aligned (as well as the fact that participants did not seem to dispute the closure at the time.) consensus can change, so I suggest, as I have for months, that you work on a neutrally worded RFC and get a new consensus established. For example, perhaps anti-religion cats can be treated differently? And is there a nazi-exceptionalism? as no-one would dare remove Hitler from the antisemitism category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in here, Obiwan; I noticed that you were one of the players on this issue. Now that you know there was no consensus on individuals and organizations, please begin removing the related "instructions" language from the tops of the bias category pages. Thanks! PS: Current practice has not aligned—there are still many, many people and organizations listed in bias categories. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest against that. The consensus was as written by the admin; even though many did not explicitly state it, the intent in voting "support unified approach" was in almost all cases to support removal of people and organizations, and many other CFDs, again and again, have deleted categories that so label people (eg. Anti-semitic people, racist organizations, etc). I can point to at least a dozen other cats that have been deleted. This is a long-standing consensus to not have these sorts of categories, and the fact that some people have filtered in that shouldn't be there just means people haven't done the cleanup. Rather than go around changing cats, the proper course of action is a new RFC. I'd be happy to help draft it, just start a draft somewhere, but begin with - what is the question? FWIW, I re-read that discussion, and I think the close was correct. It's not just about numbers, it's also about strength of argument, and I think the arguments to keep people and orgs out were stronger.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: so he can weigh in with thoughts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That there was consensus for a "unified approach" is correct—that was the question being decided. That there was a consensus about "individuals & orgs, etc" is incorrect on two counts: 1) that wasn't the question the proposer asked to be decided, and 2) six or seven out of eighteen !votes does not equate to "most support to ban individuals & organisations". So, in my opinion, Timrollpickering improperly found consensus (7/18!) on a question that wasn't even proposed. (I don't believe he used "strength of argument" to justify his conclusions.) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's always interesting when the sudden voices of support for controversial actions come from IPs... I've addressed this matter more than once when Kendrick's brought it up [2] [3] and don't intend to keep on doing so in every new forum it's raised in so I'll just address the specific new points raised and the way forward.

A conformity nomination is by definition seeking to set a common standard not just seeking agreement that there should be one - that's how every other conformity nomination I've been involved with at CFD, whether as nominator, commenter or closer, has gone. That particular discussion's nomination explicitly ends with "You've got to pick one standard or another." so the claim the discussion had no power to make that decision is false. Discussions are not votes but discussions and do take in wider policies and trends.

Now not everyone may be happy with the outcome. But there are straightforward ways to handle it. This is not by having one or two individuals trying to rewrite the determined outcome and impose their preferred one, as that just leads to the anarchic edit warring that consensus decisions seek to avoid. Rather either the CFD can be taken to review (though at three years' distance it's invariably accumulated the additional weight of little challenged practice) or a new discussion can be initiated to see if consensus has changed since then. I find it telling that in all the months since Kendrick first raised this there has been no attempt to either review or rediscuss the consensus, just attempts to bypass it. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that Roscelese (the nominator), in making the comment "You've got to pick one standard or another", was directing you, Timroll, to personally decide what that standard would be (lol). If the CfD procedure is as loosey-goosey as you describe, it needs to be tightened up. Isn't it difficult enough to determine consensus when the question discussed is clearly framed? Yet, if I understand you, it is routine to determine consensus on questions that haven't even been asked! (IMHO, admins should only determine consensus on the specific question posed.) I understand Kendrick7's frustration—he has a bigot and a category to put him in but he's prevented because someone decided that you cannot put bigots in the bigotry category. Frustration is not, however, an excuse for disruption, and I hope Kendrick7 avails himself of the avenues for redress that you have indicated. As regards the accumulated "additional weight of little challenged practice", Roscelese a few months ago said: "the result of the discussion is being completely disregarded for some categories ... and enforced for others, leaving us in exactly the same position in which we began", so, maybe it's time for a review and re-think. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Bolding added. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

71, your critiques of Tim's closing are best left for a deletion review... but, we aren't going to do one, because it happened so long ago there's no point rehashing a 3 year old discussion - it would make a ton more sense to just start a new discussion. Secondly, Kendrick's problem of "I have a bigot and I need to categorize him" is at the root of the problem, because at the time of the CFD, it was not acceptable to categorize people as homophobes but it was perfectly fine to call them anti-semites - so some bigots were more equal than others. It's also problematic to use categories to label people in that way, because it's inherently subjective, and don't say "we go by sources", as sources can disagree, and it's still a question of degree. Is Tutu an anti-semite in the same way Hitler was? Obviously not, but what's the threshold? It's much easier to deal with different sources' interpretations of bigotry in the article text, vs a category which is all-or-nothing, black or white, in or out. As to your other point, it's not surprising that the result is disregarded, anyone can add to a category, and it's hard to monitor membership in a category - you have to watch the recent changes in the category (and that only shows you who has been added, it doesn't show who has been removed). However, when I've cleaned up such cats in the past, there hasn't been much resistance. Nonetheless, I have maintained, in every conversation on this issue, that there would be no problem in doing a new RFC, especially now it's 3 years later - it remains for those who are unhappy with the status quo to put such an RFC together, and so far no-one has felt it worth their while. Maybe you will prove me wrong. You'll also need to respect the consensus that arises from that, and not continue a 1-man-war against the consensus established as kendrick has been doing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I won't be the one to prove you wrong—I only got interested because I understand "where Kendrick is coming from". I had never read a CfD before this one and hadn't paid much attention to Categories; but thanks to your and Timroll's responses, I now know a lot more about how it works. You'll agree with me that it's fortunate that what I've learned convinces me to stay further away from Category issues than I had before (lol). Maybe Kendrick and Roscelese will get together and prove you wrong. Anyway, thanks to you and Timrollpickering for your thoughtful responses. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Aha. Well, CFD and categories is a rather arcane area of wikipedia with its own set of rules. For example, WP:OSE is actually a good argument for categories, since consistency in the tree is appreciated, and many things which are eminently sourceable and verifiably true are nonetheless not acceptable as categories - the purpose is to provide navigation and grouping of like topics, while managing maintainability. This is why the vast majority of potential category intersections and "true statements about object X" do not exist as categories. There are infinitely many more things that are true than those which we accept as categories, and the black/white and unsourced nature of category membership (and difficulty in monitoring same) makes them tricky. Finally, if that's the only CFD you've read, don't judge CFD on that alone - that was a very special CFD, and the outcome was different than the majority of CFDs, which normally just say "keep" or "delete" or "merge" - in this case, the question was about really about contents, and it was brought to CFD (the discussion could have been held elsewhere, and if we do it again, I suggest we do hold the discussion outside of CFD, but its not a big deal either way). In any case, that particular discussion is in no way representative of standard CFDs - normally extremely problematic categories are simply deleted, but in this case we can't just delete "Racism" as a category, we just have to patrol it instead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the Pope Catholic?

I haven't read the whole discussion above yet, but Anon 71 is putting words into my mouth. My issue isn't with bigotry at all. My issue is with equating holding a theological belief with bigotry. "Anti-" has a long standing theological meaning; e.g. anti-Marcionism[4] is simply a theology which rejects Marcionism.

A better example might be Category:Anti-Gnosticism. Gnosticism is a more or less forgotten theology now, but was a huge deal a millennium and a half ago. Which means it didn't rank high enough on anyone's radar to actually get thrown in with this CFD.

Now, anti-Gnosticism surely got people killed. But is it bigotry? Of course not. Just because some people kill in the name of an idea doesn't make anyone holding that idea an evil person. After all anti-Communism probably killed more people in the Vietnam War than were even shuffling around the whole Mediterranean basin back then. Would anyone blanch at the project putting LBJ or, later, Ronald Reagan in Category:Anti-communists? Again, of course not.

And especially with ancient theology, who got there first is almost an accident of history. In some parallel universe where Marcion actually taught the opposite as he did over here, and a movement came along opposing this real life Anti-Marcion (I suppose we'd have to call them anti-anti-Marcionites), would the opposite side then suddenly become the "bigots"? Are we really just cheerleaders for whomever got there first?

And it gets worse! Because had Category:anti-Gnosticism made the list, then we couldn't include any "allegedly" anti-Gnostic person or organisation in the category. But, of course, Catholicism still regards Gnosticism as a heresy. So everyone who is Catholic -- at least especially the higher ups you should have to admit -- is an anti-Gnostic. So we'd have to purge those.

But it's only a hop, skip, and a jump from that reasoning to say we can't even include anyone in Category:Catholicism. The Catholic faith is decidedly opposed to the Gnostic faith.

Which means we've basically concluded that the Pope isn't Catholic. Bravo. Yay, a true victory for 'conformity'!

If you think that's just irrelevant speculation, read from paragraph 3 again with the words "Central Europe" in place of "Mediterranean basin" and "Protestant" in place of the word "Gnostic" and notice the argument still holds, perhaps even more so.

But, OK. My next step is to re-list the anti-Theology categories in a new WP:CfD. I'm busy in real life, but it will come around soon. My only real fear is that the community won't appreciate theology as much as I do! -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

you seem to be suggesting that anti-Catholicism is closer to anti-communism than it is to anti-semitism. In practice we seem to have drawn the line there - it is acceptable to label people as anti-communist or anti-fascist, likely because those labels themselves were embraced by those who held them and are not considered pejorative, while calling someone anti-Muslim or anti-catholic or anti-Semitic is seen as pejorative and most who held such views would not so label themselves. Id suggest you start a discuss at the bias WikiProject to formulate a new neutral rFC and it is possible you could make the case that certain anti-religion cats should be treated differently and that things like Category:Anti-Catholic organizations should be kept and expanded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I know not seems. I'd actually suggest anti-Catholicism and anti-Communism are closer to Category:antimatter than they are to Category:anti-Semitism. In practice, we have not drawn the line there, hence the current existence, for now, of Category:Anti-Catholic organizations. You are amongst those running around trying to draw these new lines and create new practices. Oh, that evil anti-matter, why does it hate matter so?

But thanks for the invite to take this dispute to a forum where some cabal of editors are probably hippy-dippy paranoid about "bias". If only because reminds my of my grandmother's favorite poem ;-) -- Kendrick7^talk 04:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Jack T. Chick. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrats sure do love 'plating the regs. Have no fear, I'm currently updating WP:CFD to allow this discussion to move forward. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked from editing and banned from editing Jack T. Chick

Your edits to Jack T. Chick are disruptive, clearly constitute edit warring and are violations of the biographies of living persons policy. Due to your prior history of BLP violations for which you were indefinitely blocked then unblocked with a warning about BLP and your history of editing warring on Jack T. Chick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) you are subject to the following sanctions in accordance with this ruling of the Arbitration Committee:

• Blocked for 1 month.
• Indefinitely banned from making any edit related to Jack T. Chick (including editing the article and talk page) anywhere on Wikipedia for any reason except to seek clarification of or to appeal this ban.

You may appeal this restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, if you do I suggest using this template. You may also appeal this sanction to me on my talk page in no less than 6 months from this date. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)