This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kendall-K1.
October 2011— Welcome!
Hello, Kendall-K1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ThinkPad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Hill (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.
Damn dude, I put the description of the new service in the history section because another user kept deleting anything with a mildly positive bent. Right now there are about 2 sentences describing the changes, and about 10 sentences describing the reaction to them. Doesn't that seem out of whack? Jakerome (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Right now Pogue is the only non-Yahoo positive remark. If you want to add some of the others to the Controversy section I'll support you. The PC Mag or Verge quotes would be good, just be sure you attribute them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I still think it's preposterous that there's this 3 paragraph discussion of a controversy surrounding the site redesign while the redesign itself is scarcely described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakerome (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while it's been fun for a bit, I'm pretty much done editing the article. I've been repeatedly & rudely attacked by a user that has (almost certainly) gone to the Flickr Help forum on multiple occasions asking for users to add more negative criticisms to the article. It's just not worth the effort. Good luck. Jakerome (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowden Credibility Question
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. (I guess we are supposed to say that.) I'm relatively inexperienced, though not "new". Regarding your comments in the Snowden article, if you are reacting to what appears to be a full-on nitpicking smear campaign on every little detail of Snowden's statements and supposed "contradictions" as an indicator of his credibility, I agree with you and have been monitoring the situation. However none of it has adversely impacted the article itself and so I have not made an issue of it. The best way for you to maintain balance is to remain involved in the edit process and "speak up" only when the situation warrants action. Otherwise, you feed into the negative dynamic and give it energy.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
June 2013
Please don't tell me what I write is or isn't allowed for the Edward Snowden page. You are not in a position to tell others as this is a wikipedia page, not your own page. I suggest you get off your high horse because we are all equals here. If you continue to make edits and threats, your wikipedia privileges may be revoked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.113.24 (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If US census records alone are not sufficient to establish year of birth as per one activist editor (User: Radiohist), then how about IMDb? That would provide a secondary source. The editor in question stated that info gleaned from Ancestry.com records is "unreliable", tacitly implying an intention ("... the same goes for some other Ancestry-sourced articles in Wiki") to revise other articles and undo other editors' work, while pursuing his/her agenda, which includes referring to denying Grant's "plea" (transmuted apparently via Radiohist, "who doesn't know the lady") re publishing the true year of birth as a form of "rape" (see here, and here), which is amazingly offensive, in my opinion. Is this broad opinion shared by yourself? Just curious. Yours, Quis separabit?19:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This smells like an edit war. Can't quite understand whether you are being sarcastic about imdb, since it is unreliable and has that date down just because it was on Wikipedia. Am a "his", it is a fact that ancestry is not considered a reliable source, for instance in June Foray's article, the 1920 census is mentioned alongside a Los Angeles Times article, and last but definetely least, I used "rape" as a metaphore meaning that you are doing things against her wish. Contrary to your opinion, I really don't know Grant, just see a violation and injustice to Wikipedia's policy concerning personal information of public figure. Did you see any violations or injustice and please suppress your hostility.Radiohist (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of the word rape is unbelievably offensive and if you were an adult would apologize for it. This is not an edit war I started, this is your obsessive stalking of my edits. And IMDb has a policy of not relying on Wikipedia, which IMDb regards as insufficiently reliable and unsupervised. IMDb is relying on the census records, obviously. Quis separabit?20:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kath Soucie has no birthdate at IMDb. IMDb states clearly when one tries to update biodata there that Wikipedia alone is insufficiently reliable and unsupervised. How do you know the Soucie info is incorrect?? Quis separabit?22:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kendall-K1. You have new messages at WP:MCQ. Message added 08:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Kendall-K1. You have new messages at Alarics's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Kendall-K1. You have new messages at Cuprum17's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I am so sorry, I totally misread your post and somehow interpreted it as you removing referenced material and in fact you did just the opposite! I have reverted my own revert...my apologies. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda Bynes
Hey, Kendall K. Just noticed your edit summary for Amanda Bynes asking whether TMZ is considered a reliable source. In a word, no, it's not. The trouble here (and in a lot of BLPs), is that while the basic info is likely true, the allegations are too serious to be supported by a non-RS publication and many of the more respectable organizations won't touch the story. I looked for a better source and came across this recent piece from the Guardian which makes for interesting reading:
When we're used to seeing actresses, pop stars and models as part of an assembly line of real-life Barbie dolls, it becomes all the more interesting to see one with go by with her head popped off.
She has threatened to sue In Touch magazine, Us Weekly, TMZ, the New York Police Department and a variety of other entities...TMZ updates its website practically every time Bynes tweets.
I suppose I'm doing my part by even writing about Amanda Bynes in the first place.
Anyway, I've replaced the TMZ ref with a NY Daily News one which I'm not crazy about either, but it is slightly better. Also if possible try to give the author and the source when you add bits, not just the SCREAMING TITLES, the extra info can help the reader/editor decide for themselves how much weight to give a statement. If you can't find a really good source then I'd recommend not adding stuff, they can go to places like TMZ to find out what they like. -- Tabloid Terminatorkill / Hillbillyholidaytalk 00:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still not terribly happy, because the Daily News attributes the at least some of this material to anonymous sources, and WP:BLP says "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." Great username, by the way. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Oop, I should have noticed the source didn't quite support the sentence. There are multiple outlets reporting it so I'm content to let it slide for now, although they could all be traced back to the same anonymous tip-off. Cheers, I'm building up a collection of vaguely amusing usernames, eg. User:Cůntybaws! -- Hillbillyholidaytalk 02:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Copying text from one article to another
Hi. Just so you know, for copyright reasons, when copying text from one article to another you should add the template Template:Copied to the talk pages of both articles. I've done that for your edit to Broadway theatre, but you should take a look to see how the template works. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Secondary Flickr RFC
This is a message to let you know that an RfC you participated in at Talk:Flickr ended with the closing admin suggesting that it be reopened as a simple poll of several possible wordings. This new RfC can be found at Talk:Flickr#RfC:_Weight_given_to_redesign should you wish to participate. --McGeddon (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
How to move a talk page?
{{help me}}
I'm pretty sure this move was a mistake: [1]
But I don't know enough about redirects and page moves to undo it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you an employee of the government of the United States (military included, of course) or have any relationship to the topic of the Senkaku Islands article that might be deemed to represent a WP:COI?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not, and I have no conflict. My only interest is in the improvement of Wikipedia. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
james clapper page
Hi, looks like we thought the same thing was relevant on the James R. Clapper page. I saw you added the same sentence that i did a week earlier [[2]] Yours is probably better/ shorter, but in terms of where to position it I am not so sure.
I still think the "in the media section" is oddly placed,kind of in the way; hey the whole perjury thing was "in the media". now snowden's comment is in the media.you see what I mean? it's a bag of things and if anything should go to the end in my opinion. see talk page [[3]] --Wuerzele (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that. I guess I see it as a "response." It doesn't belong in there twice. What do you want to do?
"In the media" definitely doesn't belong, it's stupid. Suggest we continue this discussion on the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
But perhaps you would prefer Nalesniki? Ukrainian: млинцi I was actually semiappalled that it redirected to "pancake" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm only familiar with the Russian version (налесники) but yes that's appalling! I have decided to be bold and changed the redirect. Thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Blintz Much more fitting. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Privyet rel Viktor Yanukovych
Hi there fellow editor,
' Just a note to say I didn't realize at the time of my editing it was you who deleted the descriptive info rel what Donetsk Oblast is. If I had known it was you, I would have at least toned down my edit summary or probably just left it deleted. You've spent huge amounts of time and effort to improve the VY article, and deserve buku THANKS! I as well as no doubt many others in the community appreciate your excellent efforts, regardless of the convergence or divergence of our various political views. Feel free if you really don't think it belongs, to remove it again. It's a minor thing. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
You mean the part about it being "a province in eastern Ukraine"? I did not remove that on purpose, in fact I think it's better to have that in. All I did was to notice that the paragraph was in there twice, and I removed one of the two copies. Apparently the two versions were slightly different and I removed the wrong copy! You can see that here: [4] Thanks for the note, I am perfectly happy with the current wording. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thank you for your support today re VY edits. Perhaps there is a barnstar in this? GerixAu (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello
You deleted a paragraph I added ("Some US individuals assert American ownership of Jeannette, Henrietta and Bennet Islands in the De long group. This assertion is not supported by the US government") in the Sovereignty section, with the edit summary "there is no evidence for this".
What is it you are saying there no evidence of; that some US individuals assert American ownership, or that this assertion is not supported by the US government? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That some US individuals assert American ownership, obviously. The US govt has disclaimed ownership. You can put it back in if you want, and I'll add a cn template. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah! The US individuals who assert American ownership are these, here.
There were lengthy explanations in the articles on each of the islands mentioned, and the material keeps coming and going across the board. I was wanting to trim the content down in most cases to a short statement, and have a full explanation on just one page. Hence the sovereignty section at De Long Islands (which was carved out of what was already there) and the summary paragraph (and edit note) elsewhere (here, for example).
My question was because I didn’t know if you were arguing for or against the SDW position. As the issue has been raised we ought to have something; as it is something of a fringe opinion it should be kept to a minimum, IMHO. I'd be inclined to have the summary back in at the De Long Islands article; if it needs a citation, how about the SDW link? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I’ve put the line back in, with the sources I mentioned. I trust that is OK with you. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for putting in the cites, and sorry for the late reply, I've been out of town. Personally I think it's too fringe for inclusion, especially given that the sources are anonymous, but I'll go along with what we have now. I don't argue for or against positions like this, I argue for improving WP content. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Kendall-K1. You have new messages at K6ka's talk page. Message added 23:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for the donuts! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hathaway
This was in the article for months. Why did you not have a problem with it then? I had also mentioned in on the Talk page in the past and you never complained. The material here has been noted by both the Atlantic and the Associated Press. If it is truly "trivial" then it is hardly worth edit warring over, no? You truly think this article has got it right in terms of POV, sourcing, etc such that getting rid of remarks you basically concede don't hurt anything and are just unnecessary extra is the highest priority? If I have a hard time finding your objection here bona fide, it's because I'd taking your complaint about going on and on about Snowden stranded in Moscow in the introduction as bone fide. I would think you would be edit warring get rid of "... because the United States had canceled his passport" in the lede if you wanted to edit war. John Valeron and I agreed long ago that we simply do not need to try and use the lede to blame the U.S. at all for Snowden being in Russia. Just say what did happen instead of trying to explain it as due to either Snowden, Russia, or the U.S. You've suggested that only one editor seems to want the "Havana asked Moscow not to let him on the plane" stuff. But you leave aside something supported by one to remove material supported by AT LEAST Valeron and I? In any case, I am more than willing to open a request for comment, but it makes no sense to do without first requesting your comment.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. I don't like edit wars and try to avoid them myself. I do think there is too much bias in the article, and I do think removing the trivial, the synth, and the poorly sourced is a priority, at least for me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
You don't like fighting but you double down on the confrontation by trying to get me blocked? I have opened a Request for Comment here in an effort to get more people involved. If you are not sure what I am saying on this page, perhaps what I say over there is clearer. When you prefer opening a prosecution against another editor in an effort to get them blocked INSTEAD of opening an RfC like I just did, I dare say you aren't actually all that averse to battling. I'll add that dubious sourcing is a more important concern than giving the reader too much solidly sourced information, at least in my view.--Brian Dell (talk)
"stick to the discussion at hand"
It's not clear to me what you are asking for here. I advised John that we might be offside consensus given the views you've expressed in the past. You see something else there? Or is your complaint that I signalled you here? If you don't want to be mentioned I will cease and desist with the notifications.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
If you honestly don't know what I'm asking for, I would prefer you not mention me at all. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you editing
at Pioneer High School (Ann Arbor, Michigan) and thought that I'd mention that if you put something, anything, on your user page, then your name will appear as a blue link and not a red one when you edit, and at the top left of this page, and this is often considered a good thing. Particularly by me. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I like my red link. It makes it easier to find my name on article history links. But thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Why Did you undo my edit of the Toledo war I cited it — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianOlson0214 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I explained this on Talk:Toledo War, which I had already pointed you to. Please discuss your changes there before editing the article. I left a welcome template on your talk page. It should help you understand talk pages and get you started editing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Havana Club merger
Hi! I noticed you've done some editing on the Havana Club trademark controversy so I thought I'd let you know that I've proposed merging the articles for the two products; discussion here. Thanks! —Luis (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Burj Khalifa
Regarding this edit of yours. Yeah I saw the discrepancy and at the time I decided to just go with a straight-up revert to the previous values until such time I could properly research where the slightly different figures came from. Most were very close and I guess missed one that significantly differed; otherwise I would have left a different edit summary. Thanks for the edit because now it's easier to just leave your current revision as is, now properly supported by the source, lest someone has something better. Take care. --RacerX11Talk to meStalk me 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I have you to thank for that correction, if you hadn't reverted I wouldn't have bothered checking the source. So thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Guy Lombardo
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I did that edit as part of a lengthy revert of a blocked vandal. Some of his edits were legit, and this was likely one of the good ones. Please revert if you feel it's appropriate, or let me know and I will. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Thank you but I have lost my appetite after learning the Wild Turkey will be destroyed. You don't suppose they would dare destroy the Pappy do you? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted another editor several times at Tetraethyllead for adding material that is not in the cited source. I'm approaching 3RR so I need to stop now. The problem is that I can't get the other editor engaged in a discussion, despite notices on two of his talk pages (it's an IP editor) and the article talk page. All the advice I can find, for example at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, suggests discussing the dispute, and asking for other opinions if disussion doesn't work. But what do you do if you can't even discuss? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The other editor did reply. Since this appears to be an inexperienced good-faith editor, my suggestion would be:
Reply on their talk page, explain both why the content is inappropriate despite the source and that the article talk page is a better place for such discussions, provide links.
Explicitly warn them that reverting over and over again is considered edit-warring and can lead to a block.
NickW557 has by now also reverted the IP editor's changes, so the two of you should be able to keep the inappropriate content out of the article without breaching 3RR. Huon (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer of formatting the
citations. Please do, and I will figure out how
to cite sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.232.211 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Now that the Guy Lombardo singles discography has three different
citations can the part about there not being any citations be removed?
I would like to cite the Capitol Albums portion of the Lombardo
albums discography, but here is the problem: they are from bsnpubs
as part of their incomplete (as of 2011) Capitol discographies, and
exist in PDF form. Can I cite an incomplete PDF form?
The Pickwick albums discography comes from eBay. Should it be removed?
Another problem, maybe: The singles discography isn't really
a discography, it's just a listing of the singles that made
the "top ten" ... you earlier suggested noting that this list
is a partial singles discography, but I have no idea as to how
this should be presented.
Invitation
Hello, Kendall-K1, I have noticed your interest in articles related to Disability. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Disability, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with disability related articles on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
GPS article
Quotes were placed around your remarks and signature in accordance with your request. No misrepresentation of your views was intended. I regret any inconvenience this may have caused you. RHB100 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Kendall-K1. You have new messages at Talk:Dubai Metro. Message added 18:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for fixing that - I had the corrected one and must have forgotten to paste it in when I did the rest of the edit. Tvoz/talk 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Minas Geraes
Thanks for the edit; I'm not quite sure how that got into the infobox. Best, Ed[talk][majestic titan] 18:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
pioneer 10
Thanks for this edit. [6] When I copied the text, I forgot I should have copied the source. Huritisho (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 1 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Screwed up the ping - any pictures of that 4010 would be greatly appreciated! We only have a 4014 now, it's not the greatest quality. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a 4014. But I might be able to get a shot of the screen with some graphics on it, if I can get it working again. I found the service manual online somewhere. And I've still got software that should drive it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh, well if you do get it running, I have a bunch of sample files from the gnuplot collection we can try on it. That would allow me to post the source in an Examples section, along with your image. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Dachau concentration camp
Re: your edit, was wondering about the Attribution template - are you saying that proof/cites/refs that Nazis destroyed the records (for this reason) are needed or that proof/cites/refs that Dr. Berger made this statement are needed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Because it's a quote, we just need to know who said this. It's implied in the footnote that it was Dr. Berger, but that should be made explicit in the text, something like "Dr. Berger, author of a study blah blah, said records "were destroyed 'in an attempt to conceal the atrocities.'" Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Another editor fixed this, then unfixed it... Berger is the source of the quote, right? He wasn't quoting someone else? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I have it fixed up now, yes, Berger was the source. Shearonink (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. You seem to be interested in Madison, Tennessee. I have had to remove what looked like copyright violation from the history section. Perhaps you could improve the article with in-lined referenced info? It is in a terrible state at the moment, but to be honest I am not terribly interested in this town as I have never been there. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You should comment on the talk page and say where you think the material was copied from. I think maybe this article should just be deleted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Revert of edi on lowest temperature
Hi,
I'll have to ask you for a reason for reverting my edit. The content I removed consisted of misinterpreted information and it was not representative of the content of the source.
Please check before reverting. mezil (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
You forgot to leave an edit summary, so I had no way of knowing why you removed the material, which had a source citation. Please discuss this at the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Lenovo
Hi Kendall-K1, regarding the recent edits by IP editors on Lenovo:
If you remember, extensive vandalism was performed on Lenovo and Hewlett-Packard back in May 2015, by EricXu100 and 24.185.91.8, both claiming "HP is the worst computer maker ever" (here, and here) while blanking the page of the HP article, and "Lenovo is the #1 computer technology company worldwide" (here and here) on the Lenovo article. Both EricXu100 and 24.185.91.8 were subsequently blocked from editing.
Then, starting in November 2015, a newly registered user called Ericxux333general (Note the username) and IP editor 72.68.154.154 started making unexplained and unfounded edits on Lenovo by deleting its country of origin (here and here).
A Geolocate shows that both 24.185.91.8 and 72.68.154.154 are located in Brooklyn, NYC, with the geo-coordinates matching exactly. Therefore, it is certain the all four editors involved are one and the same person. Considering its previous editing record, I believe there is no need to treat its edits seriously.
Thanks for the reminder. Good work on the research. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
About recent edits on the subject Hagia Sophia
"At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Hagia Sophia, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed." I have a PhD on Early Byzantine Architecture, so I am well aware of what I am writing and what's more, I directly referenced the two leading experts of the whole modern era on this subject, even revised the sentence in question. I strongly advise you to read the book sections that were referenced. Therefore, a relentless request for the clarification would be absurd. The section I edited was misleading for anyone, from casual readers to students and was not based on any reference. Now it is not.
Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Guernsey - Bailiwick of Guernsey
Have you any idea what Rob984 is on about, deleting the Bailiwick of Guernsey page and reverting back to the old incorrect version of Guernsey ?Ânes-pur-sàng - À la perchoine 10:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I assume there is a Wikipedia policy somewhere that covers splitting articles and that what we did does not conform to the policy. I have renamed articles before but never done any splitting like this. So far he has just asserted that things must be done his way without pointing to the policy. But he has now opened a rename discusssion and at least one other editor has joined in, so maybe things will get sorted out now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't believe I had split an article, I created one from scratch on a subject that did not exist. I am not happy with his just erasing the page. Ânes-pur-sàng - À la perchoine 16:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like there has been some movement and I think your article has been restored under a different name. I hope this will all work itself out in the next few days. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Kendall-K1, I didn't expect the shit storm that followed to happen. If I had known I wouldn't have undid your reorganisation (which was problematic, but certainly not as bad as what has happened now). I am really sorry. I am going to leave this to you two, so good luck with dealing with BushelCandle. Rob984 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Well it wasn't really "my" reorganisation although I did try to help out to the best of my abilities. No worries, it will settle out soon and I can get back to editing. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
HMS Victory
I've left a message on this fellow's talk page, along with some notices. He clearly doesn't get it. No edit summaries, no sources, mass changes, no consensus, edit warring, refusing to go to talk page, etc. I've also asked for temporary page protection. FYI - theWOLFchild 19:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
He's obviously not completely new to editing, knows how to pipe links for example. Not sure what's going on but I'm trying to assume good faith. I've made some cleanup edits but if they have to be reverted to get back to an earlier version that's ok with me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
He's past the point of AGF. Refusing to go to the talk page, edit warring, refusing to follow even the most basic of editing principles... I say the article gets restored back to where it was before he came along and stays that way until he follows the rules (or at least communicates and explains himself). What he's doing is tantamount to vandalism. People can't just continually ram in any edits they feel like. - theWOLFchild 19:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say he's refusing, he's just not responding. He's on mobile, I don't know what the interface is like there, maybe he doesn't get the big yellow "you have new messages" box like I do? Anyway he's on about UW level three now, so if it doesn't stop I think we can get a temporary block. And the damage can always be undone. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I guess we'll just keep an eye on it for now. - theWOLFchild 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
They kept at it and now they're blocked. - theWOLFchild 00:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Oops
Ykraps has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
This cookie is a peace offering after wiping out your edits at HMS Victory. I reverted by copying and pasting an earlier version, and your edits, I thought, were acceptable collateral damage. I had intended to put them back then promptly forgot so apologies for that. --Ykraps (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Please don't give it another thought. All I did was fix some ship names with a script, and it was easy to re-do. But thanks for the cookie. Yum! Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
USS Stennis
Fremantle is part of the Perth metropolitan area. The ship anchored off Fremantle so the sailors could visit Perth... that was the Port of Call. I don't see the need to add a questionable source with the title "US Sailors Wear Out Sex Workers" when that so-called story has nothing to do with the article. If you really felt a source absolutely needed to mention Fremantle, then why not find a different, more appropriate source? I put "uss john c stennis fremantle 2002" into Google and found all kinds of sources. I have since added one and hope we can now let this issue lay. Cheers - theWOLFchild 02:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
You Threating on my talk page
i get youre confuse, wiriting a kind of threat on my talk page saying you will block me just for be im debating some on a article that i consider not fair, you evident not agree on my position, i m debating but also repecting to the people discussing on the talk page, i even invited to the discussors to debate in that talk page, i think that you need block or other measure for threat in a far way without sense--Vvven (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not a threat. It's called a user warning template. I see you've been given this template before. I can't block you, only admins can do that; I'm simply advising you of the applicable policies that can get you blocked if you continue edit warring. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
then dont choice due your likes, write the same template in both discussers of the edit warrings--Vvven (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Kendall-K1: You have removed a few listed cocktails from List of cocktails because they were under the wrong primary ingredient. Can I ask that you move them instead to the correct primary ingredient. Your removal of Glowtini for example left it as an orphan article. I have put it back but now under vodka. If this is still not correct please feel free to move it, but please do not remove them from the list entirely. You probably also need to reinstate the others you removed but under their correct primary ingredient. Cheers. Eno Lirpa (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll drink to that. You should see the hatchet job I'm doing on Curaçao (liqueur), which was recently overrun by corporate marketeers. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
RE: Recent edit on 'Brake'
Hey, I'm new to the mechanics of wikipedia editing. I just wanted to say that I wasn't trying to just add useless verbiage on the page. Olision889 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think you were. We have enough trouble with vandals, it's great to see someone like yourself here to improve WP. I changed the "see also" to a "distinguish" because the article at break does not include any information about brakes; someone who types "brake" when they mean "break" has come to the wrong place, and we need to send them to the right place. I left a "welcome" template on your talk page. I hope you stick around and continue contributing to WP. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
ARTICLE UP FOR DELETION - Editing Suggestions
**Article for Deletion**
Sent this message to David Eppstein as well - as the two of you undoubtedly offered the most constructive comments on the talk thread.
New to Wikipedia, and made the mistake of signing up with my boutique agency name. Was hoping to have come across non-promotional and unbiased, but as written below, suppose this is a common problem for those who have a COI (we handle her social media profile)! If you have any suggestions/notes regarding a rewrite or moving the article to draft space for others to edit, that would be extremely helpful as this article was not written with intent of promotion/advertising, but as an informative piece on a local Canadian academic.
[[ Hi there. Recently submitted this post with no intention of it being overly promotional, which of course is a typical COI problem. As per your suggestion of a rewrite to remove any promotional wording (though I see a few editors have already made minor changes), was wondering if you could be of help in this area - being a completely unbiased source? I would look to provide the necessary citations where possible, of course! A bit difficult as not everything is online, but would do so to the best of my ability. However, I'm sure you are plenty busy, so perhaps you could suggest a way to move forward i.e. moving this post into a draft space for others to edit?
Thanks so much for your time, and also for not being as harsh as some others. I look forward to hearing back from you! ]]
Cheers. Hope to hear back!
... On another note, just got a message back from David Eppstein on the thread - is reaching out on user talk pages against the rules on Wikipedia?? Genuinely big apologies if so.. but would be helpful if you could let me know. Will refrain from doing so again if that is the case.
Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
.jpg)
