User talk:Kendrick7

Werdnabot is dead. Long Live manual labor!

User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/0

User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/1

User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/2

User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/3

User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/4

Where the hell are you Kendrick?

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

Categories for Deletion

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

Holocaust haggling

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

Kathleen Christison

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

Albigensian Crusade

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

PR pretty happy - are you?

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

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

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

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

2007 Dodd immigration documentation

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

left documentation re: Dodd immigration position

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

Bobby Fischer Article

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

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

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

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

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

Next, take a look at this YouTube video:

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

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

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

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

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

This material belongs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChessHistorian 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And if so, can you give us some??

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

DYK

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

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

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

Please look at PR edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My conversation with PR

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

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

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

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

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

Typo redirect Al-Ameriki tribe

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

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

Signing my posts

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

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

from Kat

Speedy deletion of Fabrizio Lai

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

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

Swift Boat challenge‎

==Swift Boat challenge‎==

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Swift Boat challenge‎, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. /Blaxthos (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Gazimestan speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Careful

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

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

Please stop

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

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

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

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

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

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