Kendall-K1

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

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)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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)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

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)Reply

• "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)Reply

See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:Primary source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

{{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)Reply

  Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Blintz Much more fitting. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

thank you for your support today re VY edits. Perhaps there is a barnstar in this? GerixAu (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Thanks for the donuts! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 me^{Stalk me} 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Thank you! Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

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)Reply

Ayub407 (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Three-martini lunch page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I think I have it fixed up now, yes, Berger was the source. Shearonink (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#December 7--LL221W (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kendall-K1, would you mind providing your input at Talk:Vermont#Sanders party affiliation? We have a visitor from England who has some definite opinions. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, will do. I've been out of town. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

-JesseW900 (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder. Good work on the research. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Agreed. I guess we'll just keep an eye on it for now. - ^theWOLFchild 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

They kept at it and now they're blocked. - ^theWOLFchild 00:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

**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.

Carlyt28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure who you are but if you had something to do with Dr. Shimi Kang and genuinely don't see what the problem is, you might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before doing any more writing. You could start with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thsanks for creating a new section for my edit. I thought it belonged lower down in the article but couldn't find anywhere where it fitted. I've been thinking about that women who had a tracker implanted and how awful it would have been if the doctors hadn't taken her seriously. Her traficker would have tracked her to the hospital and quite possibly punished her so hard she wouldn't have dared to go to a hospital again. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Horizon Organic Fat-Free Milk 1 gallon.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading this image. But note that it is preferred to upload freely-licensed photos like this to WikiCommons instead of here. Rmhermen (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I haven't had much luck with that but I'll try it again next time. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Horizon Organic Fat-Free Milk 1 gallon.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Please note that the Flickr link you provided does not lead to a page where the license you provided can be verified. — ξ^xplicit 06:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the problem. File:Horizon Organic Fat-Free Milk 1 gallon.jpg, in the "Summary" section, has a link labelled "Permission" that leads to https://www.flickr.com/photos/76969036@N02/8216045310 . On that page there is a link labelled "Some rights reserved" that leads to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ . That page says, in part,

   Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
   Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
   for any purpose, even commercially.

   The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

This looks to me like the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. What did I miss? Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

For some reason, I kept getting a '404 error' page when I tried accessing the link yesterday, but it's properly displaying now. Sorry about that. — ξ^xplicit 04:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Explicit: Thanks, but the situation has gotten more complicated. I now believe that the Flickr user I got this from pirated the image himself, and does not have rights to CC license it. Now what do I do? There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Flickr photo permissions problem. Sorry for all the trouble. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Horizon Organic Fat-Free Milk 1 gallon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kendall, I just pressed undo to your edition. It is not fair to say that the sentence contradicts the "Relation to feminism" section when the sectence is actually an introduction for that section and the "Female privilege". This is what the reference says:

"Indeed the premise of all men's rights literature is that men are not privileged relative to women... Having denied that men are privileged relative to women, this movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who believe that society has become a bastion of female privilege and male degradation."

I will gladly read your explanation about how "... claims that men had not greater power, privilege or advantage than women and the women's movement has harmed men's rights beyond the equality or either both men and women are harmed by sexism.." contradicts the quotation and "claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women" does not.

About the contest, I never received a message talking about a contest, I will read the post about it if you give me a link or a reference.

Thank you very much.

My best regards.

Naxen regexp (talk)

OP doesn't seem to know what "contest" means. I have left a message on their page about that and will block for edit warring if they revert again. I think WP:CIR balances out WP:INVOLVED here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

OP has already crossed the line considering the article is on probation. But the edits have been rapid-fire so probably best to give it a bit of time. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps they mean "content"? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kendall-K1, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 05:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have posted a reply to your April, 2016 comments at Talk:Jenna Bush Hager regarding her political affiliation on the aforementioned Talk page.--TommyBoy (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential pets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canary. 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) 09:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for tidying this up, it was my first attempt to add a sound file. But what I really wanted to do was embed it inline with the little loudspeaker logo - I got confused between the many examples and templates. In the end I let it stand although the layout is less than perfect as the current format clearly identifies the urban speaker and the expat. If you're interested in Russian pronunciation, I rely on my linguist friend R. Dickson, who tells me the first a in Stolichnaya has dropped to a schwa in Moscow (& presumably in similar words).D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@D Anthony Patriarche: I noticed that. It really surprised me. My high school Russian teacher emigrated in the 1940s, and the first time I was in Russia I had people tell me that I talked like a hick. That "urban" pronunciation sounds very foreign to me. Language does evolve.

As for the loudspeaker logo, can you point me to an example in another article that shows what you want? Maybe I could take a stab at it. In general you can't embed File links in a sentence or even a paragraph, because they cause an implied paragraph break. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Kendall, this is a kind notification asking you to stop breaking Wikipedia rules and stop advertising the commercial websites of RooshV. You are blacklisted for breaking Wikipedia rules and for linking to pro-RooshV rape-advocate commercial websites where RooshV sell Sex guides for money. You are under notification of being banned for this, we will notify Wikipedia mods if you continue advertising commercial links to RooshV's sex guides — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercadix (talk • contribs) 12:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

You can report insertion of commercial links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, and concerns about whether I represent Roosh at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. General concerns about neutrality of biographies can be reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kendall-K1 reported by User:Mercadix (Result: ). A user is complaining about your edits of Roosh V. You may respond to the complaint if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the article about Sergey Aleynikov, you insist on referencing paywalled sources (NYTimes), while removing publicly viewable ones with the same info. You argue that NYTimes is a better source, but how can one be sure since not everyone can even read it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrokeOfMidnight (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't remember removing any sources. Can you point me to a diff? As to the reliability of the New York Times, see WP:NEWSORG for how we decide if a news source is reliable, and The New York Times for history and current status of this newspaper. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jack Van Impe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 18:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the MOS link. Personally, I've always found those uses of commas unnecessarily cluttered. But if it's MOS, it's MOS! ... richi (hello) 18:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please see the UTF-9 Talk page for my comment on the removal of the Problem section. 194.100.106.190 (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, --Trovatore (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's a side-effect of the script I use to remove space before a ref. I'll try to suppress it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate it. It's a silly thing to get too upset about, of course, but it does look sort of provocative. I understand now that that was not the intent. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Most of my edits over the past 8+ years arise from articles I just happened to be reading for informational purposes. Fixing typos/letterspacing, malformed cites & templates params, and clarifying ambiguities rank highest in my Edit Summaries.

Before I made the edit in question (since the Infobox template renders "Ship complement=" as merely "Complement", and seeing mere numbers as the parameter was vague in meaning to this reader), I looked at 2 other U-Boat Class articles whose Infobox's made it clear, by nouns, that it indicated people (and not something like "complement of guns" – from First-rate).

Although you were kind enough to supply links to the appropriate Infobox template & doc, had you scrolled further down the Infobox examples shown, you'd have seen both the USS Wisconsin & USS West Virginia have "officers and men" added to the Complement value. Two out of the 3 examples belie your argument.

And since warships don't merit the more obvious "Ship crew=" param (merchant-class only, apparently), I'm not the only editor who feels the need for a clarifying noun or two.

Wikipedia has a long-standing mantra of writing articles for the average reader (not just, in this case, for nautical types or war-buffs). I felt it wasn't clear to a layman. I clarified it.

Best regards, — DennisDallas (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss this at the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you've recently merged Disability in the American Community Survey into the wrong target article. Per the merge discussion it is suposed to be merged into the "Demographics" section of Disability in the United States where it would be a valuable addition of essential information. Where it has no been merged American Community Survey it is simply WP:UNDUE as disability is only one of a wide range of topics in the community survey. I will request help from an admin to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I managed to undo the merge without help from an admin, it was easier than I expected. However I'm now having problems accessing the US Census website to get the actual survey results and reports, so I'm currently unable to do the (correct) merge. Adding a discussion about the survey without giving the actual numbers to the Disability in the United States article is rather pointless, so I will try again later. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for your help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Kendall - thanks for taking care of resolving the lede in response to the RfC. LavaBaron (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well you could say I let others do the rfc work and then took the credit for myself. Thanks for being generous. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I think it is misleading to define diesel as "any liquid fuel used in diesel engines". Most marine engines are also diesel engines but they are not build to use diesel fuel instead they use Heavy Fuel Oil-s like RMB, IFO or MGO http://www.wartsila.com/products/marine-oil-gas/engines-generating-sets/diesel-engines Wartsila

All EU countries define diesel by distillation curve.
Please see the difference in gas oil and fuel oil:
"(e) ‘gas oils’ (subheadings 2710 19 31 to 2710 19 48 and 2710 2011 to 2710 2019) mean heavy oils as defined in paragraph (d) above of which 85% or more by volume (including losses) distils at 350 C (ISO 3405 method (equivalent to the ASTM D 86 method);
(f) ‘fuel oils’ (subheadings 2710 19 51 to 2710 19 68 and 2710 2031 to 2710 2039) mean heavy oils as defined in paragraph (d) above (other than gas oils as defined in paragraph (e) above) which, for a corresponding diluted colour C, have a viscosity V:
not exceeding that shown in line I of the following table when the sulphated ashes content is less than 1% by the ISO 3987 method and the saponification index is less than 4 by the ISO 6293-1 or 6293-2 method,
exceeding that shown in line II when the pour point is not less than 10 C by the ISO 3016 method,
exceeding that shown in line I but not exceeding that shown in line II when 25% or more by volume distils at 300 C by the ISO 3405 method (equivalent to the ASTM D 86 method) or, if less than 25% by volume distils at 300 C, when the pour point is higher than 10 C below zero by the ISO 3016 method. These provisions apply only to oils having a diluted colour C of less than 2."
https://www.gov.uk/trade-tariff/chapters/27
I suggest to define diesel as any distilled gas oil used in diesel engine. Diesels is similar to light fuel oil, not to the heavy fuel oil used in central heating plants. Light fuel oil is mostly used for domestic heating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.76.230 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss this at the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help. You provided a balanced breath of neutrality. I did not always agree with you, but agreed that you were seeking a mechanism. I am optimistic something will enter the article although it will require an immense amount of effort. There was a similar section in the article from about 2009-2015, for six years before there had been at least a mention of the events. I think the challenge is here is not to veer into the rabbit-holes of opinion arguments, and provided material that is not-biased, well-sourced and relevant. If we have to argue, it has to be against that point. The problem is that they have no similar source that matches the New York Times biography to counter this history. I am confident the material meets all these criteria. I am confident some degree of history will win out. I am now getting all sorts of administrative threats from the editors on the page. Rococo1700 (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not every day I see people arguing against the NYT as a reliable source. Good luck to you and thank you for bringing this article to my attention. You went overboard with the forum shopping and so on but I can see now where your frustration came from. If you've got the stomach for it, study the dispute resolution procedure and use it to improve that article. Learn how to open an rfc. Be brief when you go to noticeboards. If you can get neutral editors to work on this article, it will improve. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Kendall-K1,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Cornell Dubilier should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornell Dubilier .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of Sponsorships and Awards

Hi Kendall - I'm new to the wiki world and didn't understand the talk feature so apologies for the delay. Awards and sponsorship sections are common to financial institutions wiki pages. You can refer to any major American or Canadian bank. Will leave it to you - I'm on to the next page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastboy18 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

That is not a reason to include these sections. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

You rotter!(joke)Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kendall, thanks for your input at Talk:Sailing faster than the wind#Awkward title. Based on your input, I have a new suggestion for you to consider. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for improving the article Diesel fuel. It's better now.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Kendall-K1. There is a proposal for new text at Talk:High-performance sailing#Proposed new text that you may wish to comment on. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, secondary sources are preferred over primary. This is something that should not need explanation. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Do it yourself then. No personal offense intended (seriously), but editors with your mindset allow citations requests to build year upon year, but (at least that I can see) make little or no effort to resolve them yourselves or adjust the text to negate their relevance. Add to the 130k+ articles yearning of citations. (Genuinely no offense.).--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it are not considered reliable sources. See WP:CIRCULAR. In general, facts must be verifiable; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I know. Sorry if I sounded a wee bit abrasive; I try and resolve to fix citations on one random article per day. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Kendall-K1,

I was pleased to see your insistence on accurate definitions in electricity production. While making a few changes to Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station I noticed that you had also contributed to this article. Its current information on the power generated by its two reactors, the annual production and consequently the capacity factor of the plant seems both unsourced and imprecise, with a capacity factor over 100%, based on a unsourced production estimate. Fortunately, PRIS has accurate information on both unit 1 and unit 2, so it should be easy to fix, using a WP:RS. Still, with your interest in providing very accurate information, I wanted to ask if you could offer a hand in trying to improve on the Watts Bar numbers? My opinion is that the production of Unit 2 should be included in the capacity factor only once electricity has been produced for at least a year, or maybe to be more fair, until the reactor has gone through a refueling cycle - which I believe for a well-managed reactor would lead to a capacity factor (%) in the low 90'es. Anyway, your input or edits would be appreciated. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

If it has a capacity factor of 102% maybe it was really worth $12 billion! Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

At Kara Killmer you removed a source as a non-RS in one section, but left the same source in another section. Was this because of the different use?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

All I did was revert to your last version. I did not mean to endorse the remainder of the article. Agreed that source should not be used for anything. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ThinkPad X Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IPS. 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) 10:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

== A Dobos torte for you! ==

Is there some other term for the condition of not being able to get laid? In the manosphere, they talk about omegas, but that's a narrower topic than the "involuntary celibacy" I read about on Google Scholar. For example, someone's spouse might be unable or unwilling to have sex, and the person doesn't want to do what they'd consider cheating, so they become "involuntarily celibate". A Jeremy Meeks kind of guy might be involuntarily celibate until he gets released from prison, even though he's not an omega. Etc., etc.

I think people probably wanted to delete the article because (1) they said, "Celibacy is always voluntary, so 'involuntary celibacy' is an oxymoron!" (Okay, so is there some other term we can use besides "celibacy"?) (2) they said, "Ugh, another manosphere article! DELETE!" (okay, well, it seems to me that 90%+ of the reliable sources out there about "involuntary celibacy" don't pertain to the manosphere at all.) Compy book (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Was there an article that got deleted? I am not aware of any other term. Someone had added "neologism referring to someone who is sexless but not by choice" as the primary definition at the dab page, but got reverted. I just re-added it, but to the "can refer to" list, not as primary definition. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, there's quite a lot of stuff there. I could always cheat and create an article like celibacy (involuntary), although creating a userspace draft might go over better.

Looking at the log, my first thought was, "I don't know who Denise Donnelly is, but I feel bad for anyone whose sex life is so barren that Wikipedians saw fit to make 'involuntary celibacy' a redirect to their name." It turns out, though, that she's actually the author of this article. Compy book (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Whoa, I had no idea it was so controversial! I suspect my addition to the dab page will get reverted now. It's kind of an odd term anyway, since celibacy is by definition voluntary (according to Wikipedia). Although it seems like a useful concept, especially since we've got at least a couple of articles that refer to it.

Cheating or making a draft would probably be a bad idea. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

It really depends. Sometimes it depends on who is making the edit, and whether the people who opposed it last time are still around and paying attention. If people think you have a bad motive, then they'll say "Ah, you're just trying to spam this topic" and revert it on that basis. I've seen some AfDs where people said, "Delete, because this user is spamming this kind of stuff everywhere." They use the deletion debate as a way of teaching the user a lesson.

googledefine:celibacy says "the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations" so I guess they have a point about it being voluntary. So what about other oxymoronic concepts like open secret, rolling stop, etc. What's your "unbiased opinion"? Heh.

I think one reason that people don't like the concept of "involuntary celibacy" is that they think, "Oh, the Elliot Rodgers of the world are going to use this term to describe themselves as victims if women won't sleep with them. So if we have this article, it creates the idea that men are entitled to sex." Compy book (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are several synonyms; AFC (average frustrated chump), blue baller (from blue balls), chode, incelibate, thirsties (rare and usually plural), omega, undateable, permavirgin, fuckstrated, loveshy (adjective) loveshyness (noun), grasseater? (almost a synonym), fuckstration or fuckstrated, not getting any, involuntary sexual abstinence. If you want to create an article titled incel, I advice you to start off the opening sentences specifying both the narrow defintion and the broader defintion. Perhaps something akin to "Incel in a narrower sense refers to someone who lacks an outlet for their sexual desires. In a broader sense it may refer to one who lacks success in courtship." I assume that when being nuanced like this, the article is more expandable and a disparate number of sources may be used. 92.6.179.137 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

This page argues that one of the main criticisms of the last version is that "involuntary celibacy" isn't used as a concept. 92.6.179.137 (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

This discussion should probably go somewhere else for a wider audience. But I don't know where. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's the problem with deleting talk pages of deleted articles. We end up with no central place to discuss article re-creation, except maybe for Wikipedia:WikiProject Manosphere. Oh, hey, maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism would want to host this discussion; I'm sure it'd be right up their alley! Compy book (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about Criticism of Walmart occurs at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Criticism of Walmart discussion, started by one of parties involved at Talk:Criticism of Walmart. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Calling_people.2C_movements.2C_and_viewpoints_.22misogynistic.22 about labeling people, movements, and viewpoints as "misogynistic." Compy book (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I feel like I have to disengage from that discussion, because I happen to know a lot about the subtle nuances of the red pill that seem to escape most of the writers of the reliable sources who don't have a deep background in it, and I find it hard to restrain myself from writing discursively on the talk pages about what I know, but can't really back up without resorting to primary sources. When I see editors seeming to make the same assumptions that are made by the reliable sources, it's hard for me not to try to educate them, since they went ahead and put their own views and perceptions out there.

Maybe you're able to be more neutral about it, and to stick more closely to discussion of rules and reliable sources without going off on tangents. I'm also starting to run out of ideas for bold edits at Robert Fisher (New Hampshire politician), so feel free to have at it.

I'm concerned that the debate about the red pill is becoming too polarized, both on- and off-wiki. It's like how Hillary Clinton decided to call Donald Trump's supporters a basket of deplorables. The feminists are calling people who disagree with them misogynists. (Red pillers counter-argue that a lot of feminists have misandrist views and proposals, but that accusation never seems to stick. The word "misandrist" doesn't catch on in the media or in academia.)

For example, red pillers will often say, "Unless there's a check on women's behavior, a lot of them will behave in some pretty dishonorable ways, lying to men, breaking promises, and in general selfishly using men without regard to the effect that will have on said men, and on the kids, etc." But feminists will say, "Unless there's a check on men's behavior, a lot of them will get pretty abusive toward women." Yet we can't have a policy debate about what kind of checks on behavior their need to be, without words like "misogyny" getting thrown around if you don't totally agree with the feminist agenda.

Red pillers don't accept the label of "misogynist". But feminists say that there's an objective definition of what constitutes misogyny, and red pillers fall within that definition. Grayfell says there's a dictionary definition and a textbook definition, implying there's quite a lot of nuance to it. This reminds me of how my first wife (who had some Jewish blood) posted to her blog a multi-part guide on how not to be antisemitic. Needless to say, the stuff she was putting in there was a lot more subtle than, "Don't advocate for a more thorough Holocaust." It started to get into all the microaggressions that people might commit without even realizing it.

So basically, "misogynistic" is to to "women" as "homophobic" is to "homosexuals" or "antisemitic" is to "Jews"? I.e., you can be that way without even thinking of yourself as being that way? The irony is, just by being heterosexual, one might theoretically be homophobic if we consider discrimination against something as an example of being against something. If I'm a man who doesn't like having sex with gay men, that could make me homophobic, right, because it's a form of disliking what they have to offer? So then maybe gay men are misogynistic too, if they hate the idea of having sex with women (as many of them do; they find it disgusting)?

That rabbit hole potentially goes pretty deep. Then there's the whole question of prejudice. People observe a certain behavior and make generalizations about the opposite sex, so that they can guide their behavior. E.g., if they observe over and over that when members of the opposite sex are put in a certain position, betrayal results, they say, "You can't trust them not to do x." I know plenty of women who have gotten burnt out with dating and marriage and said, "You know what, after all these bad experiences, I'm done with men. I'm just going to stay single." That seems like the female equivalent of MGTOW, but I don't hear people call them out as being bitter or hateful toward men. She can even say, "From now on, I'm just doing casual sex" and people will say, "Right on, girl, just use those men for sex." But of course, if a man says that stuff, it's the end of the world.

It seems like there's a double standard, but whatever; the media and the academics don't seem to feel like pointing it out, so I guess my hands are tied.

The way I see it, relations between the sexes are like relations between management and labor, in that there might be resentment sometimes on the part of one toward the other, but you can't really hate the other side too much because it's obvious that both are necessary. Somehow, they have to get along, and it's just a question of what the terms of the deal are going to be, and what the checks on bad behavior will be. They're both in the same boat, and if one goes down, so does the other. Compy book (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's quite an essay and I'll try to read it at some point. I've been trying not to fall down the "men's rights" rabbit hole. I got involved because of some obvious BLP problems at Roosh V, who I had never heard of before. I'm still not quite sure why the press is treating him so poorly, for example calling him "pro-rape" when he's clearly not. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kendall-K1, I notice that you added a parameter, "subscription required", to a citation that I provided. This was new to me, so I looked it up at Template:Cite news#Subscription or registration required and found that there are various levels of access that one can report.

I am curious, were you not able to see the text of the article that I provided? I have no subscription to the journal, but was able to see the text. I'll look for your reply, here. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I get a splash page with "You have reached an article available exclusively to subscribers" and no other real content. If I disable javascript I can read it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Amanda Bynes, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did give a reason, which I considered valid. I suggest discussing this on the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kendall, this is what I got from you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kilowatt_hour&oldid=prev&diff=781170725 Now that classes are over, I have a bit more time. So how would you calculate the number? When I do the math, it works. Sincerely, SvenAERTS (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss this on the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is an edit war going on at the above article. There is no point suggesting discussion on the Talk page. The matter was discussed at RefDesk:Language here, where you will note that consensus against User:The Banner consisted of myself, User:Marrakech, User:Bazza 7, and User:Loraof. The Banner has edit warred since the end of that discussion and the matter has already escalated to my seeking a block against User:The Banner at WP:ANI here. Thank you for appearing by your latest edit, to have joined the consensus against him. Akld guy (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

You may want to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. It is not pointless, it is essential to the process. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is pointless at this stage. It's gone beyond that. Akld guy (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kendall-K1.

No biggy at all, just curious. Why did you do this revert?

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aoziwe: It's part of a mass revert of all edits by that editor. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Percival Crabb. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - could something to that effect been put in the edit summary - it would have been helpful. Aoziwe (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's true. The script I used does not provide for an edit summary. I will see if I can fix that, or find another script. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just in case you haven't seen this, a RFC on this subject. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I saw it, and asked for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2017 archive#Survivors as to what we should do instead, but clarification was not forthcoming. So I still don't know what to do, but I do know that we don't say "survived by". Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeh, when I come across these statements I remove them and cite the RFC as the rational. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're better off citing the MOS. That's an actual guideline, whereas RFCs are just process. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Visions (Cookware) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I'm a bit confused by something and hoping you can help. You tagged a citation I made on the "Visions (Cookware)" page as a dead link. The part that confuses me is that the page the link sends you to is NOT the page I am actually adding or that appears in the editor. It should be info on a US patent stored at https://www.google.com/patents/US4018612 but when clicking the link on the page it tries to load something from European Patent Office at worldwide.espacenet.com instead. Thanks. Jtfolden (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

You were using some of the fields from template:cite patent but didn't fill in enough of them for it to work correctly. I fixed it. By the way you shouldn't remove source citations just because the link doesn't work. See WP:KDL. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I actually used the automated Cite option in the visual editor and it generated the fields from the link on it's own. Since WP was completely substituting the link, I was unsure how to fix it. Jtfolden (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wingwraith (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I could easily invoke G5, too, since the obvious sock is obvious. --Calton | Talk 04:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

No need, it's gone now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for maintaining United States presidential pets. I check on it only occasionally. Currently there is a vandal who has changed the Trump listing 3 times -- time for one of those bot-warnings on his talk page, which is something that I don't know how to do. Vandal = 2A02:8109:9400:430C:A935:CFEB:16BB:FAA2 (talk · contribs) Thanks for your attention. Btw, I am a dynamic IPv6, so please don't reply on my talk page (which will change next time I log on). ~E:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C9A:4B44:2E28:1611 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I asked for a review of your interaction with Farside268 here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Farside268. This is not an accusation, only that the timing of your edits at the AfD raises some questions about if your accounts are connected. -O.R.^Comms 14:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your post on my talkpage, however, I'd like you to bring to your attention that I have made exactly one revert, and not "multiple" as is stated in your post. In addition, I began a discussion on Ronz's talkpage in addition to the article's talkpage. I am disappinted though to see you didn't post the same advice on Ronz's talkpage as you did mine, especially considering he initially reverted without opening discussion. That seems unfair, but in anycase I hope he refrains from further reverting/edit-warring and engages the discussions at the appropriate locations I've made available. 156.194.53.205 (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

There is currently a discussion on Talk:James Allsup. I tried pinging but I am unsure if it worked so I am leaving this message. Since you were actively involved in the last discussion you may wish to add your two cents.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I added additional sources to the little article I wrote on Havana Cooler. This was my first attempt to write an article for Wikipedia, and it is a little embarrassing that I did such a dinky job. I will strive to do better. Thank you for pointing out the problems in my work. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Cristiano Ronaldo RfC. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand. Who exactly am I assuming bad faith from? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've only interacted with one other editor regarding that article. I checked with him and he assured me he didn't read it that way. Was there some other editor you think I was suggesting had been operating in bad faith? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Prostitution in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. I've undone your 'who' and 'failed verification' tag on the UNAIDS reference. If you click on the 'data' tag and then scroll down to 'Sex workers', the information is there. Because the sections are loaded by AJAX, it's not possible to have a direct url for that part. Cheers John B123 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. We still need to say who, but I'll take care of that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ip user 76.231.64.214 wasn't warned enough. Please wait until they vandalize again to report (remove the AIV report for now) JC7V-constructive zone 02:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Princess Maria has asked me to update her Wikipedia site. I have never had an interest in Wikipedia before I met the founder of a charity at the Mayor’s inorgaration and she since invited me to a Wiki Event. A few days ago I was looking at VIP’s pages that I had done bios for free in the books I have published free, royalties direct to We Care for Humanity. I was horrified at the vandalism on Princess Maria’s account that has been going on for years. I personally have many honors including a letter from Queen Elizabeth 2 I can say having done the bio for Datu(prince) Camad Ali ex prime minister and head of the royal house of Baloi, www.royalhouseofbaloi.com

Founder of NGO SMUDA he is respected by all other royal families for his work inter-faith work. He made Princess Maria a princess by legal adoption decree to help her promote inter faith cooperation and world peace. I have one interest on Wikipedia and it is to get Princess Maria’s account sorted out. My legacy is my poetry. I will be going to the Wiki Event but more for the venue than Wiki. I have learned to use Wiki in a few days but as I have 4 books to publish before Christmas I am busy and it takes more time than I have to spare. Of course for my books I have to have content agreed with the VIP’s. I was particularly shocked at the changed to the persons account on Google Darker Side of Wikipedia as I do bios for esteemed surgeons who detail preceedures. I would not dream of changing a comma! I will try again. Then it’s up to media.

Maureen Brindle (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The problem with the Princess is that we have hardly any sources to go by. The one that looks solid to me, The Star, has been questioned by another editor. I am trying to get that sorted out now and hope to be able to use it soon. It would be a huge help if you could find some more sources like The Star. We need significant coverage of the Princess, not just passing mentions.

As for your COI, being a co-author with the article's subject is going to be difficult, but if you join in the discussion at WP:COIN you might be able to overcome that. It would be a big help if you would disclose on your user page exactly what your relationship is to the Princess.

It would also be a big help if you could stop being so combative. It's just going to get you blocked for longer. We have policies for a reason, and you'll be more effective if you work within them. I'm doing my best to salvage this article. I'm usually pretty good at this sort of thing, but I need material to work with. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Merrimack Valley gas explosions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you so, so much for your participation there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

hello! I took the section headings out of the DiRosa Afd. Hope that is OK. I was more confused with them than without. If you feel strongly about it, you could put them back, no problem.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's fine too. I actually started with strikeouts, but didn't want to be accused of altering another editor's comments. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Striking multiple votes is totally OK!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Talk:List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36)#Re PROD

I guess we're having that discussion there because I stuck a prod tag on the page and 6 days later it was taken off by someone who thought we should all talk about it first. If it's "delete", we'll ask an admin to delete. I don't think "merge", collapsed or not, is an option because of the consensus at wt:ships. So, I guess we'll see how it turns out. FYI - wolf 16:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You might find this link useful. Cheers - wolf 17:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

In what context? Are you suggesting my talk page is too long? Have you seen User talk:EEng? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Richard Juliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good afternoon,

The subject of the page is a close family member of mine. What he experienced was beyond painful. His loved ones would absolutely agree with me when I say that we would appreciate if the page could be taken down altogether. If that is not enough to convince you, Mr. Juliano has a young daughter who has only known him to be a kind and wonderful father. If she were to Google him (since kids today usually have access to electronics) and find this page, imagine how her heart could shatter. I again reiterate that the subject has gone through enough. His life deserves to be private and remain off of the Internet.

Respectfully, Anonymously.yours34 (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Kendall, thanks for reverting that edit. Apparently the editor is offended that I called their edit, "Richard Juliano is a loving father, devoted husband, and wonderful pet owner", ridiculous. Anyway, I started a thread on WP:BLPN, if you're interested. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• You're welcome I guess, although I think the only thing I did was correct a grammatical error. Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Me (Steppenwolf song) after cleaning up sourcing on the article. So you obviously had the opportunity to read the source that the song was a Billboard Hot 100 Top 10 single. I responded accordingly. I urge you think about withdrawing this ill founded nomination. Trackinfo (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the guidance on the encyclopedic links on the Buffalo Trace Distillery site. Would links to the various brand pages be acceptable in the related links area if they aren't to Buffalo Trace itself? Many of the brands listed on that page have their own websites. I wasn't sure if the different brand sites would be accepted there, since the list could eventually get long. I think there are 5-6 brands distilled there now that have sites not listed on the page. Appreciate the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonFalls (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:External links. In particular, WP:ELPOINTS no. 2, "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article." And WP:ELNO no. 7 and 19. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at [[:Linh Nga.]]. (Congdungngonhanh (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kendall-K1. I'm afraid that some dingbat has filed a sockpuppet report on me, naming you as my sockpuppet. (Yes, really.) They have neglected to inform you of this (as they are required to) so I am letting you know. The report is here:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielRigal

I have had a small handful of previous sockpuppet reports filed against me (Some were bad faith and some genuine mistakes) so I'm not too bothered. I hope you can see the funny side of this too. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notification. I don't usually respond to these but I think it's only fair to mention that the user who filed this report will be unable to respond for a while. I'll do that now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't meant to be snide, exactly. If it was offensive, I apologize. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura}

[McInnes] actually leans much further to the right than the Republican Party. His views are closer to a white supremacist's. "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of, he said. I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."- The Edge of Hip: Vice, the Brand" by Vanessa Gigoriadis, New York Times, 28 September 2003

Nope, no reason to think he's a white nationalist AT ALL. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suspect you're being sarcastic, but in any case please discuss this on the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest that you have commented on at the user's talk page. The thread is Karldmartini. Thank you. —-Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Toledo War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply