User talk:K

Employee Free Choice Act: Original Research?

You erased a section I had explaining why unions want binding arbitration, claiming it was original research. However, it is not. I cite the original paper, but I also cite an AFL-CIO release that cites the paper, which is a secondary source. I assume good faith, but you may have a hard time showing that the AFL-CIO, one of the main advocates of the Employee Free Choice Act, doesn't argue what I said they argue. Are there objections you had we should discuss to find a consensus version to put back up? 75.119.22.100 (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the paragraph, making more explicit that the statements towards the end of the paragraph are the AFL-CIO's assertions about what commonly occurs. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

Hi,

I've posted on the discussion page as to why that section should be included. Please respond to it before deleting that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained on the talk page. Thanks for the note. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God of the Gaps

Thank you for your discussions and many edits on this article. It reads much better now. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rlsheehan. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

urgent

I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help with Fillmore article

Kenosis, thanks your recent help with the Charles Fillmore article. I'm not sure why Hrafn continues to challenge innocuous statements on New Thought-associated people -- if he's interested in improving the articles, he could help out. But it certainly gets tiresome, so it's nice to have your help in setting the article right. Madman (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health care reform in the United States

Hi Kenosis - regarding this edit summary [1], please remember to assume good faith. I quoted Marcia Angell verbatim and did not misrepresent her position at all; I have no objection to your adding her opinion in favor of single-payer healthcare, even though it is not strictly relevant to the specific subsection (which is about insurance). Also, although I linked to the New York Times "Room for Debate" forum because it is a good forum, I chose Dr. Angell's opinion because she was the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and is thus probably the most widely respected source in the group; to call that "cherrypicking" seems misleading in the context of accusing me of misrepresentation. I also have no objection to your adding Karen Davenport's opinion, although she doesn't even have her own article yet so you might want to remove the non-working Wiki-link.TVC 15 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith, and the assumption of it by others, have nothing to do with misleading statements within what were quite obviously very POVish edits. I believe the edit summary to have been an accurate representation of the content I saw and how I handled it. Thanks for the feedback nonetheless. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the opinions that you added had been omitted because they were not strictly relevant to the specific subsection; the affected sentences have since been moved to a more appropriate section.[2] Unfortunately, I will have to revert your recent deletion of a USA Today Editorial/Opinion. The edit summary calls it "unsigned" but newspaper editorials are the opinions of the paper; USA Today is the largest circulation newspaper in the United States, and clearly a reliable source. Assuming good faith, I guess you didn't notice the caption or how the newspaper is structured. Please consult WP:NPOV regarding how to balance POV issues. I saw Senator Durbin's statement and added his source (apparently President Obama's opinion), and contrary opinions including the USA's largest newspaper (citing HHS data). If you feel something is POV, especially in the context of ongoing debate, the appropriate response is to balance with contrary sources and ensure neutral presentation. Each side is entitled to its own opinion, but not its own facts. I am curious how assuming good faith can be consistent with accusing someone of misrepresentation though.TVC 15 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the misrepresentation was intentional. In any event, your edits will need to be consistent with WP editorial policies or they'll likely be reverted or otherwise brought into keeping with WP policies, including WP:V#Reliable_sources. An unsigned opinion piece isn't a reliable source. I trust that should conclude this discussion on my talk page. Please bring any content-related issues up on the article talk page(s) as you think necessary. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Hopefully this edit helps resolve the issue here. I've attributed the statement in the article specifically to the USA Today editorial staff and worded it accordingly, without drawing conclusions not explicitly in the source. It'd be better yet if we had the original HHS information to cite rather than an opinion piece. Thanks; take care now. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kenosis that the text removed was misrepresentative and taken out of context.Scientus (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHO study, Intro to HC in US

[3] Agreed. I have tried to make the same change in the past, and for the same reason, and been reverted.Scientus (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wilson discussion

Kenosis, I want to let you know I have just posted a lengthy explanation of my position on the Carter question, and answers your last question to me about why I brought up Donna Edwards in discussion. In fact, the more research I did, the more I became convinced that Carter was probably misquoted, and the "racism" charge is a serious BLP issue. I'm looking forward to your response, thanks. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what happened over the past hour with the discussion on Joe Wilson? I was wondering if you saw it. I know I added a comment and it seems like it is gone and it's not even in the history or anything. Really weird. Was there some kind of Wikipedia revert? Reliefappearance (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were you referring to this diff? If not, possibly you'd hit "preview" or had an edit conflict when you submitted it. It's happened to me before. If such was the case, I'd just resubmit it. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I dunno I must have just hit preview. Reliefappearance (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Kenosis, I posted a defense of the addition to the first sentence of the science article on the Talk:Science page. Please discuss, thanks. Nickenge (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being reported for a 3RR violation -edit war

You are being reported for a 3RR violation -edit war71.184.177.11 (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the two edits you referred to at WP:EW/N, here and here, two of roughly a dozen-and-a-half edits that I've put in within the past couple days, were not "reverts" but rather were neutral point of view edits based on WP:V#Reliable_sources that were well in keeping with WP:Policy. However, possibly you missed this edit, which was actually a revert, to the last revision by another editor who holds a very significantly different personal POV than I do, but who regularly follows WP:Policy as I also do. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being reported for edit warring

You are being reported for edit warring96.237.129.194 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]