User talk:Kendall-K1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

October 2011— Welcome![edit]

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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Em dashes[edit]

Per WP:MOSDASH, em dashes are used without offsetting spaces or en dashes are used with them. I've corrected the changes you made to RADIUS. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 19:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I left the spacing as I found it. It could also be changed to en dashes I suppose. But hyphens are not correct. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for all the good work you are doing at Electric bicycles! Ebikeguy (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks man ;). If you could help on the article's peer review you'd be very welcome. Lordelliott (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28[edit]

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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just fixing a link that was already there. But I will go ahead and remove it. Not that you'll ever read this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Flickr RFC[edit]

Hi, as a recent past editor, wondering if you might be able to chime in on the Flickr talk page to help resolve an extended dispute. Jakerome (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
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)

Snowden Credibility Question[edit]

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)

June 2013[edit]

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 (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the block you received for vandalism? I didn't block you, Gilliam (talk · contribs) did. If you have a problem with his actions, you might want to take it up at WP:ANI. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: Lee Grant[edit]

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 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)

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)
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)
Apologise for my use of the word rape in a metaphorical sense. It is a 100% lie that I am stalking you, this is something that have been working on for a long time to synchronise the Lee Grant article with Wikipedia's guidelines. Your behaviour right now is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and WP:Battleground Radiohist (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I am glad you finally (albeit half-heartedly) apologised. However, you are mistaken. I fully accept that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and that it should not be a battleground. When I see that I am wrong about something, I admit it and own up to it. I have made plenty of mistakes and always admit when I am wrong if I see I am wrong. Quis separabit? 21:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
IMDb is not using census records for Kath Soucie's mistaken birthdate, it is relying on Wikipedia. Radiohist (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
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)

Can you please move this discussion to Talk:Lee Grant? This isn't the right place for it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Census records[edit]

  • "I do know that the census is not a proper secondary source."
Just wondering if you could give explain this a little bit for me. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:Primary source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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.

ww2censor (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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.

-- Alarics (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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.

Cuprum17 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

DHS and my faux pas[edit]

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 apologies. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes[edit]

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 Terminator kill / Hillbillyholiday talk 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! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Copying text from one article to another[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

{{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)

Yes check.svg Done Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:37, 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[edit]

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 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)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 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[edit]

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)

De Long Islands[edit]

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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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)


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"[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Metric horsepower[edit]

Hello Kendall,
Please see Template talk:Convert#Metric horsepower and metric horsepower. Peter Horn User talk 14:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice catch![edit]

Nice catch [5] on the Bowling Green State University article! — Kralizec! (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Why Did you undo my edit of the Toledo war I cited it — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianOlson0214 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. --RacerX11 Talk 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[edit]

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)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 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.

7&6=thirteen () 20:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

How to engage an editor in discussion?[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

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:
  1. 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.
  2. Explicitly warn them that reverting over and over again is considered edit-warring and can lead to a block.
  3. If they persist, go to WP:ANEW.
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! Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)