User talk:Kevinkor2

User:Kevinkor2/Research into names of Wikipedia articles

That's pretty cool! Very interesting to see, thanks. -- Natalya 13:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, Natalya. It was my pleasure. --01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Kevinkor2

Towers of London

I told 12thMarquis:

I suggest if you you want "despite being a spoof punk band" to stick on the page:

• Find a newspaper or magazine article that uses the words, "spoof punk band", directly when describing Towers of London.
• Quote the sentence from the article and cite it.
• Add the quote to another section (possibly "History") rather than the lead paragraph.

What do you think of this advice? --Kevinkor2 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The guy was just trolling, its a genuine band.. its article seems to recieve quite a bit of vandalism recently because the front man has been featuring on television shows. - Deathrocker 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:TROLL#Bad faith, "When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. ... Remember and apply the principles laid out at Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers."

Therefore, even if 12thMarquis has been trolling (an assumption that I do not make), they can still make valuable contributions.

I am willing to help. --Kevinkor2 14:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Internal Links inside External Links

When an [[internal link]] is the only content inside an [http: external link], the result is probably not what the editor wants.

I propose changing an [http: external link [[internal link]]] combination to [[internal link]][http: external link].

User:Kevinkor2/Pages that use internal links inside external links has a list of pages with this problem.--Kevinkor2 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot

To: Rich Farmbrough, Kenosis

Cc: Template talk:Fact

From: Kevinkor2

Currently, Rich, your bot is expanding {{fact}} by adding the current month, resulting in {{Fact|date=February 2007}}.

Kenosis, whenever you see this on the Truth, Pragmatism, and a few other articles, you revert it. As you noted at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Automated fact-tag tagging, it would be useful to have fact dating/nondating under control of an article's editors.

I suggest we adopt one of three possible compromises:

1. Manually change {{fact}} to {{fact|date=}} for facts where we do not know an accurate date.
2. Add {{nobots}} to the top of the article.
3. Research the page history for the first appearance of the {{fact}} tag to give it the correct date.

I recommmend the first alternative. --Kevinkor2 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in general, Kevinkor2. The existence of the category Category:Articles with unsourced statements, out of which this function of the bot arises, is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20. I'm on the road right now and only have a minute. Talk later. ... Kenosis 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, Good set of ideas, but actually all the articles are done now (with a vanishing small set of exceptions, sich as those where people have substed the template, or reverts of SmackBot). If anyone wants to move the dates further back, they can of course do so, Kenosis and others claim that it is easy to find the dates from history - I think "easy" is a relative term here. The names of the dated categories are supposed to reflect that the tags are at least that old (since month boundaries, for example, will never be neat), however the rate of addition of articles suggests that a typical "current month" will be around 20,000 at the end, so that the February block is not as oversized as it appears. Rich Farmbrough, 00:23 24 February 2007 (GMT). 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

How very kind of you to offer your encouragement and appreciation, especially after all I've been through lately. I finally had a few chuncks of time to do some serious additions. I really do enjoy writing articles. And I have been blessed to aquire very good sources to use. Thanks again for your kindness! Pastorwayne 13:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth cites

I've reverted to reintroduce the two older statements with "citatioon-needed' templates, and will now remove the tags instead to avoid recurrences of this kind of mindless editing until "WP fact-tag policy" can be sorted out by the wider community. Sorry to inadvertently step on your "cite-def" edit. Please feel free to re-do when you have a chance. Good regards. ... Kenosis 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ISSN template

Yes, thank you - it is functioning the way it was before! I still cannot say I understand how it all works though ... :-( ... Feels like I need to see what is calling this particular template before I have that Ah Ha!, but I haven't figured out how to do that. Also, in the current code, the parameter bolded below never displays, right? Keesiewonder ^talk 12:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |This article refers to a periodical that doesn't have its [[ISSN]] information listed. If you can, please provide it. {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|[[Category:ISSN needed]]|This Template should be used only on Talk pages}} |}

• The only improvement I can envision is that the template discontinues listing itself and excludes Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance when you view [1]. Keesiewonder ^talk 12:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Movedetail

Template:Movedetail has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kevinkor2 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As you may notice, I do still differ with you about the usefulness of {{movedetail}}, but I appreciate your courtesy about the matter, especially taking the time to notify me of the proposed deletion. Thank you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, Antaeus.

{{movedetail}} is well written, and its function of moving detail (instead of an entire page or section) is something that is not covered by the existing templates.

I suggest we could rename this template to {{mergeto-detail}}. It could function the same as the current {{mergeto}}, but have an additional detail= parameter.

What do you think? --Kevinkor2 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I wish it would be possible to tell how a template (or category) has been used historically. --Kevinkor2 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Thanks for your msg; you may be interested in my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#DEFAULTSORT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy Graham

Thanks! I thought that I had got them all. Thanks again! --Wikihermit 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the visit!

Hi, Kevin! Thanks for the visit to my user talk page, and for leaving it better than you found it! Have a great day!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

lightning

Thats the problem! I have no clue! What they did just pissed me off! not what that typed, well that to, but how STUPID it was that it made 0 since! by the way, yes i have but....i forgot everything in it!X X--Takaomi I. Shimoi 12:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:3RR on Wiki

User:Ant.silver was vandalizing Wiki by systematically blanking sections. He was subsequently indefinitely blocked for his disruptive edits. It was not a content dispute, and it can't continue due to his block. Leebo ^T/C 01:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, Leebo. You are correct. --Kevinkor2 01:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings. Happy editing. Leebo ^T/C 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

.hack/wiki

You know what?! Your right! 100% right! and as for my text typeing from yestrday, i have no clue why i typed like that! I guess i was to into the moment! Hopefully that moment! And ill try to find out who did the vandaling on lightning!Kanpai!--Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

BAN HIM!

I found the #$% who did that STUPIT thing this %&$ was the last and olny person who edited on that page! HE IS:USER:Bert Hickman Im going to tell him something he wont like! K.A.N.P.A.I.!--Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am 50% certian! His page and history does look fine but, he was the last and first editer in that time span!--Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well he was the first and last one to be on there to edit! between the time i did it to the time i returned "HE" was the "OLNY" person to be on that area!--Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I put alot of info on that DAMN Bubble! I typed,in my own words ,the police & witness report! I come back to find that B.S. on there! is i6t possible that a vandal can put that stuff there and NOT be in the history??? --Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not likely.

Sometimes when editing a page, I have trouble with the browser's "Back" button. Consider the following scenario:

1. Add a new section to a talk page by clicking "+" at the top of the page.
2. Type a few words in the moment.
3. Click the "Show preview" button.
4. Do lots and lots of typing.
5. Click the "Show preview" button again.
6. See that everything is satisfactory, so click the browser's "Back" button.

Sometimes the browser discards all changes made between the first and second preview! --Kevinkor2 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A grain of salt

Kevinkor2, I would take Mr.Taka's exclamations with a grain of salt. His editing style is extremely similar to a blocked user I know who has been creating sock puppets. Now, even if that's just a major coincidence, the problem has been discovered and it turns out that there was no problem in the first place. Mr.Taka should drop it now. Leebo ^T/C 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Personally identifiable information

To: Cliffb (talk · contribs) and Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs)

From: Kevinkor2 (talk · contribs)

I've taken the liberty of removing the names and e-mail addresses from your AMA case. The following are the changes I made:

• 08:34, 26 March 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Cliffb (removed Personally identifiable information) (top)
• 08:28, 26 March 2007 (diff) Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Cliffb (→Summary: - removed Personally identifiable information)
• 08:26, 26 March 2007 (diff) Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser (→Checkuser Request for AMA case - remove Personally identifiable information.) (top)

You can see the information that was originally there by clicking on the (diff) links above.

--Kevinkor2 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of reverting the edits you made to my AMA case. Attempted harassment should not be done in private, providing the harasser any additional privacy is repugnant. Additionally, the email address used by the harasser is forged, and thus does no good to protect, either from spammers or other wikipedians.

I am a bit curious why you felt a need to do this in the first place?

Best Regards. —Cliffb 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, Cliff. My initial change was a reaction to seeing a name and e-mail address in a public talk page. Were you able to use the (diff) links I provided to undo my mistake? --Kevinkor2 18:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Your links were helpful in reverting the edits.. —Cliffb 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not as active on this case as I'd like to be as my internet is not function as it should. You've acted well Kev. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Positive input

Thank you for your words of encouragement - they help a lot when one spends a large chunk of time dealing with what appears to be the lunatic fringe. Enjoy your day! Paul venter 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

regex!

Thanks; I needed (I think) to take off the trailing \b on the find and both the leading and trailing on the replace, but, essentially, you are, of course, right on! Thank you very much! Keesiewonder ^talk 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Still wrapping wrong in FF

Sorry to report that the George Harrison article still wraps improperly. I used the Firefox "Web Developer" extension to set my window to fit on an 800x600 screen and saw a horizontal scroll bar. I scrolled down until I saw this which shows the "citation needed" message spilling over the right-hand window border, and also shows the scroll bar at the bottom. I deleted a little bit of the window, but I think the problem with the {{fact}} template HTML/CSS in Firefox is shown clearly. The screenshot is from Firefox 1.5, but I checked and got the same results from Firefox 2.0. John Cardinal 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lady Phillips

To: Berks105 (talk · contribs) and Paul venter (talk · contribs)

From: Kevinkor2 (talk · contribs)

I recommend that both of you stop renaming the article about Dorothea Sarah Florence Alexandra, Lady Phillips.

These actions are interfering with your common goal: To get the best article on Lady Phillips possible.

Until active editting has stopped, treat the name of the article as a placeholder. After active editting has stopped, we can rename it if necessary.

--Kevinkor2 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Taka

I just wanted to note that we should ignore his sob story that he posted. Don't reply to him unless he talks about Wikipedia (and even then, only if it's about how he can improve in a sensible way). His signature is dumping a rambling life crisis on his talk page before moving to his next account, so if we acknowledge it he'll just keep talking. Leebo ^T/C 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, Leebo. Because of this, I will provide paraphrase/translation service only on messages about Wikipedia and how he can improve his behavior on it.--Kevinkor2 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Methodism

Thanks for the tip! I am most intersted, and have added my name to it! Pastorwayne 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPILT

I gots just two woids fuh ya: join an' spread-da-woid. Eh, dat's two woids, right? >;-)

PS: Nice initial list! Gimmetrow expanded it some (on the project page I mean; no one's futzing your userspace), and I added a couple too, like the very new {{rp}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi from Mimos

Hi,

Thank you you big for warning... :)

I wanted to use that and another, but their delete the editors... :(

--Mikho Mosulishvili 22:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

TBD template

Go ahead! I've been off Wikipedia for a few days, so I didn't notice your note until this afternoon. But by all means, improve the template as you like!

--EngineerScotty 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

John Money

Hi, there. Your edit summary of [your recent Edit to the John Money article] was misleading. You described it as "create Category:Biology of gender. join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies#Proposed category: Biology of gender". You failed to mention that you had deleted a large section of the description of the life of David Reimer. Please be more careful to fully describe your actions in edit summaries. Joie de Vivre 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. --Kevinkor2 20:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

and I agree with you. Thank you. --Kevinkor2 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Patriarchy in Christianity

Wiki has the feminist POV on Patriarchy at Patriarchy in feminism. I think we need a Patriarchy in Christianity article. Something like, "The Anglican 1662 mariage service includes ideas from Ephesians 5 ... ." "God himself is a Father." "What justifies Patriarchy (in the Christian world-view) is self-sacrificial, servant leadership modeled on God and Jesus -- simply speaking -- love." "Passages from 1 John and 1 Corinthians are used by the following Christian organizations in marriage preparation." Christians hold a wide range of views of marriage too, so it's possible to cover at least three models: "male servant leadership", "mutual submission", "egalitarian/independent".

I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot of material available online. Easy to research and verify. I'll get around to some of it eventually, but not for a couple of months. Just a thought if you're feeling bored with nothing to do sometime. ;) Alastair Haines 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting

Thanks for your work of sorting the Category:Christian evangelicalism into its sub-cat :) -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 18:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Men

To: Wikipedia talk:Translation; Hans555 (talk · contribs)

Cc: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality

From: Kevinkor2 (talk · contribs)

Hi everyone,

Since the middle of May, I have been removing articles about individual people from Category:Men. So far, I haven't had opposition to this.

What do other wikipedias contain in their equivalent Category:Men?

--Kevinkor2 12:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

D.A. Waite

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article D.A. Waite, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KenWalker | Talk 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dresden images downloads desktop cast 800.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dresden images downloads desktop cast 800.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam Kane

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Adam Kane, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Midwest Christian Outreach

From: Kevinkor2

To: JBFrenchhorn and Smee

FYI, JBFrenchhorn and Smee,

Your discussion in talk pages mentioned Midwest Christian Outreach (MCOI). I have listed the article on MCOI for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwest Christian Outreach. Thank you.

P.S.: There are no real editors for the MCOI article, so I am contacting one or two outside people who might be interested based on links to MCOI.

Kevinkor2 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

the Word fundamentalism

Dear Kevin, I saw that you removed the catg: Christian fundamentalism from the articles such as Local churches, Watchman Nee, and several others, based on the assumption that a "fundamentalism doped" article should contain at least one mention of the word fundamental or its derived. Well, I don't know much about the other groups and people, but I do think that the above three article I mentioned falls under the criteria C. F (appropriately, if you read them).

The another thing I wanted to say is that, Say, if I add a paragraph in these articles and use the word "fundamentalism" in some sense then the article becomes suitable under the cat: Christian Fundamentalism. How silly is this, Kevin!! Let's give a thought on this and reply me with what your understandings are regarding the inclusion of articles on wikipedia under the category "C. F".

Ya, I just want to discuss this (minor but important), otherwise I have no other reason writing on your page or some duty to put these articles on the catg: C. F. Please give it thought! Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Hello, HopeChrist. It is good to write to you.

After reading the articles, I agree that Local churches or Watchman Nee are fundamentalist in the sense of "affirming the fundamentals of the Christian faith". However, in the United States, "fundamentalism" has become a perjorative term. It still has the meaning of "affirming the fundamentals of the Christian faith", but this is secondary to the meaning of "an aggressive ... religious movement which, in coalition with ... political forces, seeks to combat what is regarded as the ... takeover of the state, family and church...." (quote from Fundamentalist Christianity#New fundamentalist)

I agree with you that it would be silly if the sole criteria of whether an article should be a part of Category:Christian fundamentalism is whether it has "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" in the body of the article. However, because of their perjorative meanings, "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" have become terms that require explanation. An article on Watchman Nee would have to answer the questions, "Is Watchman Nee a fundamentalist?" and "What type of fundamentalist is Watchman Nee? A theological fundamentalist? A political fundamentalist?" If I see an article in Category:Christian fundamentalism without this explanation, I assume (sometimes incorrectly) it is used in the perjorative sense and remove it.

These are my understandings about catg: C. F. What are your thoughts?

P.S.: I have put a copy of this on my talk page and your talk page. Because this discussion helps catg: C. F. and Wikipedia as a whole, I have also added this to the category's talk page. I will try to keep the three synchronized.

-- Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Hey Kevin,

First thought, fundamentalist Christianity somehow also includes fundamentals of Christian faith whether "it" (the group, movement, or a person/individual) may or may not be politically active. I fully agree to the point that in modern USA today, the word has deviated from its original meaning but then the Wikipedia is not just for the English (speakers) readers of USA but for all the English speakers of this world. For example, when I see the word fundamentalist or fundamentalism (in relation to christians or Christianity) I understand (perceives) its application in terms of conservatism.

Second thought, the word fundamentalism became politically ignited in the last 20 or so years because of the degradation and deviation of the mainline Christianity from the word of God (today). For example, the movement such as "King James only movement" railing against all or most of the modern Bible translation. Another example, most of the revival movements of the last century (including the 1980-90s in USA) -- the word "fundamental" became something symbolic for "coming back to the basics".

So, I believe, we need little more discussion on this for not to make this so called catg. "Christian fundamentalism" a narrower one. Thanks for sharing the thoughts. HopeChrist (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the Family & Dominionism

Hail and well met, Kevinkor! I just restored a category you had removed from Focus on the Family. You were right to remove the cat, as there was no supporting statement in the article. However, now that I have added a supporting statement (with sources), I hope you find it acceptable. On a personal note, I note that our personal points of view diverge a bit, to say the least. I hope we can use our differences to find the ever-elusive "Neutral Point of View". ;-) In any case, I look forward to learning from you. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, JeffBillman, for your note and changes to Focus on the Family. Unfortunately, they were reverted by Knulclunk. I have taken the issue to Talk:Focus on the Family. Hopefully, we will get an answer there. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you a Dominionist?

Greetings again, Kevin! I just read your analysis of Frederick Clarkson's definition of Dominionism. While Clarkson provides an excellent working definition, as a working definition it is still imperfect. Also, I've noticed that Clarkson's definition is often misinterpreted by well-meaning Christians on the American political right.

You state, "Although the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Congress from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", it does not change the beliefs of the American people or the roots of American democracy. According to a 2007 survey, 78.4% of adults identified themselves as Christian, down from 86.4% in 1990, but still being a supermajority. I believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States were overwhelmingly Christian, that founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based on Christian principles, and that a Christian character was fundamental to early American culture." All well and good, but this does not make the United States a Christian nation in the same sense that Iran is an Islamic nation. We do not require that our citizens or even our public officials be Christians. Tolerance for personal religious belief, expressed privately, has always been a hallmark of American jurisprudence and public sentiment.

Next, you state your beliefs, followed by a brief statement to the effect that "religion is man's construction." I see nothing Dominionist in that sentiment whatsoever. Contrast that against statements by Dominionists which (according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, itself consisting of more than a few Christians) propose the death penalty against apostates, pagans, homosexuals, astrologists, and others. Source

Finally, you appear to view the options for interpreting our legal foundations as dichotomous; either wholly reconciled to so-called "biblical law" or anchorless, on the winds of change. Neither view is accurate. Rather, our legal foundations are steeped in the traditions of English Common Law, itself not just the product of biblical study but also centuries of Christian tradition. To abandon this for a "return" to "biblical foundation" would be like discarding the past 20 centuries of academia in favor of the [Roman and Greek] classical arts and sciences. I sense you know this, and agree; along with most Christian conservatives. Dominionists, however, do not agree. They have plainly advocated the abrupt abandonment of American (and English) jurisprudence in favor of this mythical "biblical foundation". Far from being "conservative" (in the sense that they seek to conserve certain extant traditions), Dominionists are truly advocates for change.

So in conclusion, no, you are not a Dominionist. As I am not only a bit of an advocate against Dominionism, but also at least a fiscal conservative myself (I am a right-leaning Libertarian), it troubles me when people on both the political left and right conflate opposition to Dominionism with agreement with the American political left. In reality, I seldom am in such agreement, and I note that there are a few other, less vocal opponents of Dominionism who, like me, tend to be more conservative in our political outlook. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply requested

...at Talk:The Family (Christian political organization)#Wilberforce Foundation != Wiberforce Forum. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

To: 69.121.221.174 and Schrandit

(copied to User talk:69.121.221.174, User talk:Schrandit, and User talk:Kevinkor2.)

Hi 69.121.221.174 and Schrandit,

Since I am monitoring the page, Focus on the Family, I noticed 69.121.221.174 making edits and Schrandit undoing them.

Because I was concerned about this, I looked at all of 69.121.221.174's recent changes. Some of his/her changes involved terminology about 'mother' vs. 'pregnant woman' for a person who is pregnant who has not given birth yet. Of these changes that 69.121.221.174 has made, most were undone by Schrandit.

• undone:
  • Pro-life movement
  • Abortion and mental health
  • Indirect abortion
  • Ethical aspects of abortion
  • Beginning of human personhood
• some not undone:
  • Christianity and abortion
  • Religion and abortion
  • Pro-choice

Some of 69.121.221.174 changes that did not involve this dispute were also undone by Schrandit:

• Same-sex marriage and the family
• Focus on the Family
• History of lesbianism

I recommend that the dispute, 'mother' vs. 'pregnant woman', be taken to the talk page of Religion and abortion.

I also recommend that Schrandit and 69.121.221.174 not change terminology in bulk until the dispute is resolved.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a fine recommendation, but not one that Schrandit accepted. Some of his changes were fixed by others, the rest I fixed myself. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To: 69.121.221.174 and Schrandit

Dear Kevin, I appreciate your concern, the "mother" v. "pregnant woman" debate has (unsurprisingly) been had a few time and consensus has landed on "mother" (Talk:Religion and abortion#.27Mother.27 vs .27pregnant woman.27]]) this has been pointed out to the anon a few time but he/she wars on. ([2]) - Schrandit (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Abortion

Responded at my talk page, posted same response to the template discussion page. Cirt (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy

I saw that the checkuser was overridden but to be honest, I don't know if that decision was for the best. I have heard that Spotfixer left that address, but how would we know that? I remain skeptical. I'll do my best to refrain from fraternal pronouns. - Schrandit (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems that you often think that people are Spotfixer. You thought that I was Spotfixer, and even managed to support a ban that was overturned. You also thought that User:208.80.104.2 was Spotfixer and even managed to get a brief ban that we now have evidence was mistaken, although there's no point overturning it anymore. There was another one some time ago, which I can't find the name of at the moment, that was likewise questionable but apparently stuck. Most recently, you decided that User:Phil Spectre was Spotfixer, and that one didn't even generate a block.

The pattern here is clear: you routinely accuse people of being Spotfixer, and are typically mistaken. It's weird, but hard to deny that Spotfixer is your Moriarty. I think you need to accept that not everyone who disagrees with you is Spotfixer, and that Spotfixer is long gone and probably wasn't any of the alleged socks. Instead, you would be benefit yourself and Wikipedia greatly if you could avoid taking things personally and stick to the content issues that are the cause of people disagreeing with you. Please take this as constructive criticism of the most generous sort. CarolineWH (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, I thought that you were Spotfixer, so did a lot of people, so much so that another used filed for a checkuser and it turns out you edit the same articles the same way from the same ip adress. What an amazing coincidence, so amazing in fact that I am having a very hard time believing it is just a coincidence.
2. Support a ban? I had no hand in your conviction.
3. That is a lie. I have never had any interaction with User:208.80.104.2.
4. "There was another one some time ago, which I can't find the name of at the moment, that was likewise questionable but apparently stuck." What in all creation are you talking about?
5. "Most recently, you decided that User:Phil Spectre was Spotfixer" No. Another user brought a checkuser case, I found some evidence that I thought was interesting so I mentioned it. I have never had any interaction with Phil Spectre before or since.

There are only 2 usernames that I have ever so much as wisppered an insinuation at. The first was TruthIIPower and I was right about that account. The second was you and I'm not convinced that I was wrong there. - Schrandit (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been asked to drop this, so I'm not going to respond, as it would be unfair to you. CarolineWH (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have every right to mention it and I will, expecially when you bring it up. - Schrandit (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Fellowship Navbox

Template:The Fellowship Navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, Alan.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my deletion nomination. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Discovery Institute

I appreciate the justification and professionalism vis-à-vis Talk:Discovery Institute.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, UnicornTapestry.

I appreciate you raising the questions on the talk page. It was good that you challenged an unclear edit. I'm happy I was able to satisfy your concerns.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC) :)

Thanks

... for the constructive changes/corrections to the revision I made yesterday to The Fellowship/C Street entry.Likesausages (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Vereide

Hello Kevinkor,Kindly organize the "Abraham Vereide" page into appropriate paragraph sections, as you have sucessfully done at an earlier stage and since you have the electronic expertise in formatting.I have added recently some new research gleanings to the page which is illuminating about Abraham and his life's influences and regarding those who motivated his life's course. Sincerely, Ivan Anderson

FYI

[3] - Schrandit (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hate Groups position

Hi Kevinkor2,

There is a line through your decision to "delete" Hate groups categories, on the discussion page. Is this something you did or vandalism?--DCX (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dougcweho,

It is something I did: I decided to change my decision from "delete" to "listify". (Both have the same effect of deleting the category, but "listify" ends up creating a "List of hate groups" page. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowe that's something I never thought I'd see !

Avro Manhattan / Jack Chick crossover.

I'm not sure I like the idea either, it's probably a bit selective of Manhattan's anti-Roman polemic, and skipping his Modernist poetry. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... Avro Manhattan doesn't mention Modernist poetry at all. If you have reliable sources talking about it, feel free to add it in!

Also, feel free to add and remove names from the navbox and the Chick Publications Inc.#Overview section. I'd like to keep the two in sync if possible.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Lively debate

Lively debate. Funny title, given the debate is on Scott Lively. I'm just writing here to say I'm still looking into adding the Lively ref and associated new text. It's just I'm too tired tonight and likely busy for a few days. And thanks for calmly injecting calm into the debate as some apparent newbies learn the BLP, RS, AGF ropes--one even just made a personal attack and someone else reverted it. I'm telling ya, the personal attack / soapbox thing is making me really wary about adding the proposed text and it is they who proposed it initially. Listen, if you think you've got good reason to add it and it's encyclopedic, go ahead and add it. I appreciate your patience in waiting for my input but at the same time I don't want to hold up something an experienced editor feels is appropriate for the article. Nice working with you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

hate group

that was a great improvement!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.166.43 (talk • contribs)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LORD

Template:LORD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center

You know, it's not actually a vote and there's also no obligation to stick to the same answer; I've changed my answer already. If any of the responses convinces you that a source is reliable and relevant, then please support it, regardless of how many sources you want to keep. We need a deep pool of sources to survive the expected attempts at removal. Dylan Flaherty 20:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

David Berger

How long should aricle stay on your side ? 92.252.122.169 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The article should stay in user space until we get some references that establish notability.

The equivalent article in German Wikipedia is de:David Berger (Theologe).

Unfortunately, I don't speak German, so I cannot translate the references.

However, the ones that might establish notability are

• <ref>Stellungnahme der Fördergemeinschaft „Theologisches“ vom 13. April 2010</ref>
• <ref>David Berger: Ansonsten muss ich dies als Verleumdung betrachten, kath.net, 14. April 2010</ref>
• <ref name="fr">David Berger: "Ich darf nicht länger schweigen", Frankfurter Rundschau, 22. April 2010</ref>
• <ref>Kirche feuert schwulen Theologen, Frankfurter Rundschau, 27. Juli 2010</ref>

Sometime, I might let Internet Explorer's Translation Accelerator take a look at the German article.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

<humor>Some German words are similar to English ones, but my first glace at the edit tab thought it said: "Bearbeiten » Bait the bears!".</humor>--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

CPC lead sources

Hey, Schrandit and I were just wondering if your votes for keeping some of the cited sources for the statement about false medical information were still the same. Since some of your concerns (namely, you thought the sources didn't support the statement, but Dylan quoted lines from the sources that did support it) have been addressed, I thought it might be worth checking so that no one's claiming your voice on their side in error. Roscelese (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Do not presume to speak for other editors. Kevin, are you still of the opinion that the 14 sources for the last sentence in the lead should be cut down to a more manageable number. On the talk page you suggested that 2 would be sufficient. Are you still of this opinion and if so do you have any particular opinion as to which would be the best to keep? - Schrandit (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Weren't you wondering too? I would never presume to claim another editor's support if I wasn't ready to ask them up front, and I assumed that you would live up to the same ethical standard. Roscelese (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Abortion – breast cancer hypothesis

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Abortion – breast cancer hypothesis's talk page.

Thanks for the notice, Salegi. I'm going to let my changes [4][5] stew for a few hours. Maybe they will be reverted. Maybe not.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You've got new messages!

Hi Kevinkor2. I replied to your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates#right word?. -- -œ^™

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! Mike Restivo (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

General sanctions on abortion articles

Just letting you know, in case you didn't already, that abortion-related articles are now subject to general sanctions, including but not limited to 1RR. Going by what's already occurred (two editors blocked at Lila Rose and the sanctions were imposed what, a day ago?), it looks like there's going to be a lot of admin involvement as well as a lot of attempts to game the system. Be careful! We've edited very productively together, and it would be a shame if you returned from your break and immediately got blocked or something because you weren't aware of the new rules. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Hi everyone,

I am enjoying a longer wikibreak as other interests are occupying my time.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox journalist

You recently contributed to the Template:Infobox journalist. Your input is requested for the following discussion: Template talk:Infobox journalist#Twitter. Thank You. --Flyguy33 (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A template on your userpage

Hi, your Userpage uses this template: {{sc|L|ORD}}. Shorrtly this template will disappear and produce strange results. I suggest you change the text into {{smallcaps|Lord}} to get the same result. -DePiep (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, DePiep. I appreciate the notice. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Goodwill Industries Navbox

Template:Goodwill Industries Navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Kevinkor2/David Berger (theologian)

User:Kevinkor2/David Berger (theologian), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kevinkor2/David Berger (theologian) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Kevinkor2/David Berger (theologian) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, Ricky81682. I agree with the delete.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Estimated adult (15-49) HIV prevalence, Uganda, 1990-2007.png

Thank you for uploading File:Estimated adult (15-49) HIV prevalence, Uganda, 1990-2007.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

Also:

• File:Estimated number of people living with HIV, Uganda, 1990-2007.png

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Biology of gender has been nominated for discussion

Category:Biology of gender, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Boolean, register, and condition testing templates has been nominated for merging

Category:Boolean, register, and condition testing templates has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:GKFX^talk 11:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)