User talk:DKalkin

• Archive 1 (Nov 05 - Feb 06)

Awesome job again on American empire (term)

Great job. I am impressed.Travb 20:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

arab nationalism

don't worry, i've written worse things than that. leave a text for a few months, and you never know what you'll find when you get back... Arre 03:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
• Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
• Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 13:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Wow, good job on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). I hope to add to it shortly. You may want to alert some of the editors who are active on immigration-related topics directly via their talkpages. I will likely do so if you don't get around to it.

Just a few things I want to mention: I argue for the use of "unauthorized immigrant" on Talk:Great American Boycott. The argument is essentially based on a rejection of permitting the law (i.e., legislators and law enforcement authorities) to be the standard by which issues are evaluated. This is particularly important here in Wikipedia, where we are in the process of creating our own standards.

Secondly, the term "undocumented" is inaccurate for the 40% of unauthorized immigrants (in the United States, at least) who have overstayed their visas. These people have documentation, but it is just not current.

Thirdly, I have argued in other places (most recently on User talk:Perspixx) against the use of a blanket term. There I write, "As much as I favor a standardized language for encyclopedia articles, the immigration issue is close to my heart. Personally, I am willing to begrudge the use of the term "illegal". However, I tend to believe that instead of using a single term in every instance, we should allow for some lexical flexibility allow for greater precision in in order to account for the nuances in individual situations."

Just some things to consider, and I look forward to a constructive discussion.--Rockero 19:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much of a problem with "unauthorized immigrant," but I don't believe it's as common as "undocumented," and I'm afraid it may be something of a neologism - I've never heard it, at least. And "undocumented" does accurately describe people with overstayed visas - it doesn't mean "without any documents whatsover," but "without proper immigration documents." An undocumented border-crosser might have forged documents, or for that matter medical documents, or whatever. But feel free to write a proposal for "unauthorized," stealing whatever language is necessary from the proposal for "undocumented."

I agree that lexical flexibility is good, especially in allowing the use of more specific terms, and that might be something you could add to the "Where possible, avoid controversial terms" section. Kalkin 19:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and finally I don't really know who's regularly involved in immigration editing. I'm primarily involved in war- and anti-war-related articles, but have had arguments on this issue come up on the ANSWER talk page. If you could notify those people, that would be excellent. Thanks. Kalkin 19:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's not common, which is why it doesn't have the same stigma that "illegal" does, and is perhaps the reason it is used by Joseph Nevin, author of Operation Gatekeeper. It may be something of a neologism, as I know of no other authors who use the term. But were it to come into common use, it is likely that it would acquire a connotation that is just as negative as "illegal". We have the problem of the euphemism treadmill here.

I was actually just hoping to make my arguments part of the discussion that will occur as part of your proposal--I had no intention of formulating a new proposal.

Were it not for your definition of "undocumented", I would consider your proposal sound. Where does it come from? You can reply here since I have put this page on my watchlist. And I'll let the other editors know, but I don't know how soon I can do it.--Rockero 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

When I say "write a proposal" above, I mean "add a new Where compromises are not possible, use... section." If you're still in favor of "unauthorized immigrant," please do that, if you have time.

My discussion of the meaning of "undocumented" above comes simply from how I've heard it used. It appears to be conventional, at least within the immigrant rights movement, to use it for all immigrants without proper and current legal authorization. The American Heritage dictionary gives the following:

1. Not supported by written evidence: undocumented income tax deductions; undocumented accusations.

2. Not having the needed documents, as for permission to live or work in a foreign country.

...which seems ambiguous on the issue, depending on how you interpret "needed." From dictionary.com.[1] I think I'll add the dictionary definitions to the proposal.

As for the euphemism treadmill - well, lets worry about changing connotations when connotations change, we have enough of a problem in the short term to occupy us. And I wouldn't be too sure that the whole ideology of immigration won't change, with the kind of movement that can get a million people off work and in the streets just appearing, plus the longer-term demographic trends in the U.S. We can hope, at least... Kalkin 00:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

First of all, let me second the WikiThanks. The proposal is definitely something that should be discussed, though my personal opinion would be to avoid both terms at all costs, except in direct quotes.

If, as some dictionaries in their weasely "oh, we're just describing how people use the word" ways claim, "illegal" is indeed an adjective with two distinct meanings, one of which is "in a country in violation of its laws", then people wouldn't constantly be trying the "they're doing something illegal, so they're illegal immigrants" line of "argument"; that they are shows that it is indeed the same adjective being used, and that the people version is somehow thought of as an extension of the action version. (I do share your concern that this is dehumanising).

I'll comment on the proposal's page later.

Thanks again! Hope we'll see some real discussion now!

RandomP 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

V/R

Dkalkin, Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

V/R 160.149.13.69

Where did I give the impression that I don't want my writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others? I do know Wikipedia policy - please be more specific. Thank you. Kalkin 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're the person who was vandalizing the Template:Anti-war topics article. When your block expires, feel free to edit other people's work mercilessly, but please make some effort to follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Kalkin 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dkalkin,

I find it facinating that you invoke the "nuetral point of view" policy, when it is clear by looking at the links, that there is a definate biased agenda being set by what is listed. The current list of links is not neutral. Every objection to modificaitons I have seen so far have been from self proclaimed Socialists or proponents of Trotskyism or other such ilk; yet none are listed in the "sources of oposition" column. It is obvious that your worldviews have a direct connection to your anti-war sentiments. Nor do you list "draft dodger" next to "consciencous objector". The hidding of agendas and hipocracy with the evoking of "neutral point of view" is amusing.

Have a happy 4th of July.

V/R 160.149.77.68 04:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What is not neutral about the list of links? You spend a lot of time talking about agendas, but little demonstrating concrete problems. Just for you, I added draft dodger right next to conscientious objector. I'm not sure what bias I've eliminated, though.

My worldview does, of course, have a direct connection to my views on war. I assume yours does too. What it doesn't have a direct connection to is my Wikipedia edits. Please assume good faith. I would like to as well, but the repeated addition of cowardice to a list of sources of anti-war opposition in disregard for Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. But prove me wrong - make your future edits constructive.

Merry Christmas to you.

Kalkin 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dkalkin,

I'm on a different computer, but I will start a profile up later tonight. I will endeavor to be constructive as well. Currently there is a discussion on adding in "fellow traveler" into the "sources of opposition" section. The Antiwar topics discussion page has the conversation between myself and Schiemweb.

If you get the chance, please read through my reasoning and let me know if you concur.

Thanks.

V/R 72.135.23.153 00:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Learned something from you

For the past six months, I have gone back and forth with wikipedians arguing that America is not an empire, on the American Empire page. At first this was interesting, but it has now become very tiring. You have kept out of this argument.

I realized from you, that it is smarter to ignore these wikipedians, let them bray on the talk page and only react when they change the text of the article itself. When I argue with these wikiusers, it gets them angry and emotional, and causes me to work harder in protecting what we have spent so much time building.

Thanks for the valuable lessen. :)

Signed: Travb (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, thanks, I guess, although I don't think that lesson can really be attributed to me. I've been sucked into talk-page debates, for example on ANSWER, but I've managed to avoid this one because I was tired of the topic just from doing so much work on the article. Kalkin 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Talk:American_Empire#New_edit

Can you take a second to look this over: Talk:American_Empire#New_edit Thanks. Travb (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to delete that stupid template below this message--every message people try to message you under the template modifies the template [2], and doesn't stay on your talk page. Travb (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. The changes to American Empire look fine to me. BobFromBrockley seems to know what he's doing.

Some helpful Wikipedian subst-ed the template, so lets see if that fixes it. Kalkin 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: List of slogans and chants supporting immigration

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of slogans and chants supporting immigration, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slogans and chants supporting immigration. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

AdamBiswanger1 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming immigrants

I have indeed read the naming conventions discussion. In fact, I posted a comprehensive overview summarizing the case for "illegal immigrant" versus the other proposed terms several days ago. In this way I do indeed believe that I am "helping to contribute to a standard." I hope you don't think I'm on sort of mission to demonize here, only to standardize. That includes abandoning potentially offensive terms such as "illegal alien" as well as imprecise neologisms like "undocumented worker". Feel free to respond to my post on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). TheKaplan 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding back the quote: [3]. I have moved on to: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America, you are welcome to join us if you like. Travb (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be intersted in this map discussion

Talk:Overseas_expansion_of_the_United_States#Include_other_maps.3F I mentioned one of your comments (I think it was yours) on the American Empire page.

Also you may be interested in: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls

Signed: Travb (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Going to unwatch American Empire

I think I am going to unwatch myself from American Empire. The page has been static for months, and the only comments we get are from wikipedians on the talk page. I trust you will protect the page from vandals, etc. I trust your edits. If you get in an edit war, please let me know, okay? Travb (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck with other projects. Kalkin 22:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Moore UEL

I am new to this process but thanks for straightening out my mistake with the disambiguation page. Podiatrist

3RR on Joseph Massad

I believe you have violated 3RR on Joseph Massad. Please self-revert before another edit is made so that you are not sanctioned. Thanks. -- Avi 02:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an exception to the 3RR rule for biographies of living persons which I believe covers this case. See WP:3RR#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material. However, I will make no further edits until a neutral editor comments. Kalkin 04:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The exception is only if the potentially libelous material is not sourced or poorly sourced. In this case it is reliably sourced, so the exception does not hold. -- Avi 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think hearsay which does not quote Massad directly is certainly too poorly sourced for an accusation as serious as anti-Semitism. Kalkin 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Schreiber letter quotes Massad directly. -- Avi 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. Not in the quoted section in the article, and not in the rest of the letter, which I just read. It does however contain a revealing quote saying that Massad "promote[s] vile and insidious anti-Semitic hatred in the language of anti-Zionism" - ie Schreiber's belief is that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and this is the basis for his view of Massad. There is, I suppose, a case to be made for this, although it rests on a highly suspicious and itself arguably anti-Semitic equation of Israel and Judaism, but it suggests that Category:Anti-Zionists ought to be sufficient. Kalkin 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions on Khalidi

I was very pleased to know that someone else was also not happy with some of what was written on the Rashid Khalidi page. It sure was very biased but now, with your contributions, it is more neutral. Good work. Marwan123 05:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Marwan1234

ANSWER

My comments on ANSWER were entirely accurate; listen to the venon spewed at their rallies. Please reinstate them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MagicKirin (talk • contribs) .

Your comments on ANSWER were inaccurate, but that's not the point. Your comments were uncited and controversial and therefore do not belong, regardless of their truth. See WP:NPOV. Kalkin 23:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Hi! I got your username from the Association Inclusionist Wikipedians. I'm trying to work against a band of linkocrites (see en:User:cochese8). You look as if you're a valuable editor and I could really use some help [preserving] a great link. I would ask you to review the discussion and vote keep if you agree with the link's value. By the way, you're welcome to ask for my vote to keep any information on this website. Thanks for your help! Cochese8 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)