User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/12

March of the prostitutes

Just saw your new article. Can't give you a specific timeframe, but the Grand Rapids Michigan police did something similar about 15 years ago. Just prior to a national church convention, they rounded up all the hookers, arraigned them on whatever pretense the busted them on,put them on a bus and released them on their own recognizance in Alpena, 250 miles away. For what it's worth. :) John from Idegon (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Al-Arab News Channel

Hi Kendrick, glad you liked my edit :). I've started a discussion on a different edit at Talk:Al-Arab_News_Channel. Boud (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Roswell Lee Evans

Hello, Kendrick7. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Roswell Lee Evans, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Arbustum (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossip v. Gross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cruel and unusual. 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) 09:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Roger Ver for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Ver is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Ver until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Template

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I dun screwed up. And despite your templated advice, I've replied on your talk page anyway :) -- Kendrick7^talk 01:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Quixotic plea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Eric Casebolt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Casebolt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Casebolt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. VQuakr (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eric Casebolt

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Eric Casebolt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 07:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I do not know how long editors have not been allowed to remove speedy tags from pages they created, but it has been at least five years. The notification immediately above also explained this to you. VQuakr (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 2015 Texas pool party incident. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kendrick7 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on 2015 Texas pool party incident. Claiming an edit is vandalism merely due to the editor's participation in an AfD on the article is not assuming good faith of that editor. GregJackP Boomer! 06:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Brain fart for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brain fart is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain fart (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Psychonaut (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Eric Casebolt

A tag has been placed on Eric Casebolt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vince Gunter

The article Vince Gunter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable. Only secondary source coverage is for a single introduction of President Obama at an event.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. agtx 22:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Dan and Farris Wilks

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Kendrick7, thanks for creating Dan and Farris Wilks!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. .

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fitzsimmons-Maher Prizefight, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mexican and American. 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) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Roger Ver for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Ver is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Ver (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 71.167.144.135 (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Digital life form listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Digital life form. Since you had some involvement with the Digital life form redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Palestine (non-disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Palestine (non-disambiguation). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Palestine. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Palestine – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Montgomery v. Louisiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juvenile. 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) 11:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine Disambiguation Page

Hey Kendrick7, I wanted to let you know that I undid your edits on Palestine, since neither edit improved the content of the page. If you would like to discuss the validity of these, please take it up on the Talk Page. bojo1498 talk 12:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

‎Requesting guidance

Greeetings

It seems you have been working on culture related some articles too. I am requesting your kind guidance for change of name of one article. When I started working on a new article recently, presently named Poles in mythology actual article name was some thing different, actually due to some misunderstandings some one changed name of the article to Poles in mythology. Matter of the fact is I wanted to cover cultural aspects and festive celebrations as an umbrella article and wanted to have historical mythological, worships wherever concerned as a small part of the main article.

Poles in mythology is altogether a different subject when I am doing research and writing cultural aspects of festive celebrations are also coming up simultaneously and I am coming to a conclusion that for covering cultural aspects of festive celebrations of 'pole' we need to have a separate umbrella article altogether so we will not have more confusions and misunderstandings. Either we need to change present article name or split and create a new cultural aspect related article.

Please let me know your openion and if you are positive to my suggessions what should be the new articles name ? In fact you can join in discussion at Talk:Poles_in_mythology#Change_of_article_name

Looking forward to your kind guidance

Thanks and warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL

Re: comment at the "pole worship" RM.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Doe law

Hello Kendrick7,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged John Doe law for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Murray Hill Inc. listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Murray Hill Inc.. Since you had some involvement with the Murray Hill Inc. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Citizens United case listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Citizens United case. Since you had some involvement with the Citizens United case redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Citizens United ruling listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Citizens United ruling. Since you had some involvement with the Citizens United ruling redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of HDMK

The article HDMK has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of HDMK for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HDMK is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDMK until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. clpo13_(talk) 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kendrik7

Thank you Kendrik7 for welcome message, my intention is to make wikipedia more better by adding academic citations from my field of interest. Editing a page, I still need to learn a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sykonos (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Perfect, I have checked WP Five Pillars, thank you. Will put my efforts to adhere with it all the time. Thank you once again Sykonos (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Messing with other people's section titles

Don't do that. That's a pretty quick way to get yourself blocked. Volunteer Marek  17:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions template

How longer is this nonsense going to continue, I wonder... some of those sanctions-championing people are really bitter-spirited about it. At the same time, I don't see my motion to suspend them having very much following. I bet someone will re-add the template again soon, for the n-th time. LjL (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Hello,

I'm Brad and I'm a writer. I'm currently putting together a feature looking at how the Wikipedia entry for Bernie Sanders has been changed significantly since he launched his presidential campaign. Given that you've contributed more than most, I'd be very keen to speak to you about your experiences. Would this be possible?

Cheers, Brad Jones

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rare Earth hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern American. 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) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

notification of edit warring case

In an attempt to get an uninvolved admin to look into the situation regarding SCW/ISIL sanctions, I've raised a case at 3RR [1] I'm not seeking a block, but having you remove the template over and over is not constructive or likely to lead to a solution. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2015 San Bernardino shooting

added a link pointing to Terrorist watch list

International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust

added a link pointing to Palestinian

Joseph Murphy (veteran)

added a link pointing to Intoxication

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Too soon listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Too soon. Since you had some involvement with the Too soon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Wittylama 13:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of oldest military units and formations in continuous operation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry VII. 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) 11:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kendrick7 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: ). Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I've commented in that report. There may still be time for you to promise to leave the sanctions banner alone, until such time as you get a clear consensus. Otherwise it looks like you are resuming your previous edit war from December 4. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for your reply. You could undo your removal of the banner. This might be enough to avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey

The battle continues. Btw, what does :p mean? Quis separabit? 23:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I finally found out what the symbol means (see this cool site). Quis separabit? 03:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Leonard Deadwyler

Hello Kendrick7,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Leonard Deadwyler for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Rollingcontributor (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism's use is primarily synonymous with antisemitism

Hi, Kendrick. On Talk:Anti-Judaism I've brought links to prior discussions which I believe indicate that the consensus is that the majority of sources use the terms interchangeably, which is what the lede should reflect. This is not bias; quite the opposite, it gives weight to the predominant usage in the language, which is the very heart of WP:NPOV. If the minority usage is that they are fundamentally distinct, and the majority use (as shown by the list of sources) is that they are the same, that is what the lede should reflect. By claiming they are distinct in the lede, weight is given to the minority position, which is a WP:FRINGE issue. In any event, I've asked for input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, and I would request that the article remain as it was, and discussion localized on the talk page, unless consensus can be shown that the predominant usage of the term is separate and distinct from antisemitism, which would then support the lede as you wrote it. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you

Hello and thank for contacting us I regards to user "edit warring", while we as a collective have been using and editing wiki since it's beginning we have recently together decided to combat the biggest problem we have found on wiki. We are Falsefactscorrected, we have noticed a lot of users impose their racist views and racially motivated changes to stories and facts changing them for their own political or racist agenda. We aim to correct this racially or biased changes to facts by correcting the false facts with correct accurate facts made by evidence and credible sources and not "users" who promote their racist or biased views by altering facts to support their biased opinions. We hope you join our effort and become part of the solution, and not the problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falsefactscorrected (talk • contribs) 07:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 726, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maya. 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) 10:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are hereby banned from making any edits to the article Bernie Sanders for 1 week.

You have been sanctioned for a direct violation (addition of contentious content without firm consensus) of the discretionary sanctions already in effect at Bernie Sanders: "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page."

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, fine, @Coffee:. This is one of the dumber WP:BICYCLESHED debates around. However, I reject the claim that Bernie Sanders religion is "contentious", seeing as this information had been in the article since 9 November 2006.[2] The only thing that has changed in recent weeks -- after over nine years of this being completely a non-issue -- is that people are using Wikipedia as a political football during a major election. I really can't think of a better explanation. That's a shame. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You had read the talk page, and you knew the edit was contentious. If you want to go down the same road Sir Joseph did at WP:AE (you should look over how all of the admins there noted it was obviously contentious to make that same edit), be my guest, but just note that it's not the best of roads to be traveled. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What I know, @Coffee: is that no new consensus has been formed, which is obvious from looking at the talk page. As such, the 9-year long status quo still stands. Bernie Sanders hasn't "ceased being a Jew" just because he won the 2016 New Hampshire primary. This might, in fact, be the only thing @Sir Joseph: and I have ever agreed on. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate tagging

As a general rule, it's not wise to use standard templates on regular users. If you have a content dispute with someone, you discuss on the article's talk page. You've been invited to do so, but instead, you chose to revert and call it something it isn't. That is actually more disruptive than what you perceive I did. Again, consensus is that victim names add nothing to summary articles of incidents. They certainly can be included in Tilikum's own article, or in articles on the individuals if they are already notable enough. I won't change it back, because I prefer to take the high road. Again, discuss first. --McDoobAU93 00:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oligodynamic effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silverware. 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) 10:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Your revert on Category:Antisemitism

Clearly, there is racial antisemitism. But the main reasons why Jews have been discriminated against, hated, persecuted and killed were not "simply" racism issues. Religious antisemitism has been particularly influential in Europe, and merged with racial prejudices and cultural antisemitism into anti-Judaism.
Most importantly, economic, political and cultural antisemitism (for the latter see the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) are based on the completely opposite assumptions than the white supremacy paradigm of racism is: these forms of antisemitism are based on the perceived superiority of Jews, at least in terms of political power and economic success. And as these forms are clearly dominating antisemitic discourses, it is quite crude and actually wrong to subsume antisemitism under racism.
Guess you understand now why I reorganized the categories: clearly not for downplaying antisemitism, but to allow both racism and antisemitism be categorized separately under Category:Discrimination. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Would you actually mind undoing your revert? Regards, PanchoS (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Holy Christ Almighty. No I certainly won't revert @PanchoS: is this a joke? Are there cameras hidden around my house? Fuck you if you don't think antisemitism is racist. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC) ^{I have warned other editors about the danger of watering the term down though}

@Kendrick7:, I'm assuming good faith and a bit of ignorance on your side. Finally, you might have not come across discussing the complex relation between racism and antisemitism. Please read a bit into: Bacharach: Antisemitism and Racism in Nazi Ideology and Jerome A. Chanes: Antisemitism: A Reference Handbook to see the relation between the two has been discussed and debated for decades.
For the records, of course I'm not saying antisemitism is any less despicable, less significant or less murderous – in the contrary, as the Shoah unmistakably showed us and as Jew-hatred continues to show us every day. I'm just stating that it is a distinct form of bigotry, worth being listed separately rather than being subsumed under racism.
Now I'm ready to settle this dispute with you, and think we can find a compromise, but certainly not before you stop swearing and insulting me, and acknowledge you've gotten on a wrong track, though a nice little "sorry" would be appropriate, too. --PanchoS (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Death of Dawn Brancheau

Hi, @Kendrick7: I would like to update you on this article. This AfD was finally closed in favor of article retention. So that part is good. The closer deemed there to be a consensus in favor of an article name change as shown. I am not sure that that issue was actually fully addressed at AfD as an item of proper specific attention, as a momentum to delete was being addressed as the primary issue. As to my own opinion, I am somewhat on the fence about the article name, although if pushed I would personally prefer "Dawn Brancheau". I will confess, though, that is partly because I think the labeling of a person like this is undignified and a policy that offends my sense of "natural law", which is not an argument I will invoke much. It may not be easy to win over glaciated hearts on the merits of the pre-mortem events in the specific article. That said, I do see what you see, and I suppose it might be worth a go. The other argument I see for the shorter name, which I think might successfully bolster the case, and which was never raised at AfD, is that we aren't trying to disambiguate 2 articles here - in which circumstance I do think it makes sense to use the introductory modifier. Here there's just one article, and brevity might be more meritworthy than judgmental disambiguation that doesn't disambiguate. I remember you seemed fairly clear about favoring the shorter article name. So I'm going to leave this with you but please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Happy editing. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kendrick. As the closer of the AfD I determined consensus to be keep and move to Death of Dawn Brancheau. I would have appreciated you discussing the matter with me before overriding my close and moving the article back. Also, I am not seeing a clear consensus against moving on the article talk page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kendrick7 and Sarahj2107: It has been moved back again to "Death of". If Kendrick wants to generate a consensus on this aspect, it's time for them to take it to the Talk page, or I may well consider opening up the conversation there. The input at AfD in favor of a name change stated that WP:ONEEVENT is explicit about this, but since there is just one article here I do not read the policy that way. If that Talk page conversation is undertaken, no disrespect is intended to Sarahj2107. The intent here is not to be disruptive or polemical. Sarahj2107, do you want further discussion before it's possibly taken to the Talk page? FeatherPluma (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: Personally, I have no strong opinion on what the page name is. Like I said, I view the consensus at the AfD to be in favour of "Death of". If people are disagreeing about what the name should be then it would make sense to have a proper discussion on the talk page. If consensus is then to move it back to Dawn Brancheau, I have no problem with that. What I don't want is a move war. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kendrick7 and Sarahj2107: Thanks for the reply. Agree. Kendrick may have their own reasons, but I think I myself will start this Talk page discussion. Thanks again. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Kendrick7 editing archive of closed RfC. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. :) -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision and for adding known contentious content without obtaining the required "firm consensus", in violation of the sanctions already in effect on the page Bernie Sanders, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Jesus Christ. @Coffee: has gone way, way, way off the reservation here. Not only has he/she blocked me (I don't care, I had things to do on wikisource today) but they've blocked editing on an archive page in a vandalized state to make it only possible to be fixed by an admin.[4] If Coffee doesn't think I will raise holy hell about this in 24 hours, they have another thing coming.

Decline reason:

It seems you were blocked for editing in violation of an arbcom decision. This applies to all of Wikipedia, archives too. Also see what is not vandalism, vandalism does not mean and edit you disagree with. This is a short block, it could have been longer. Raise holy hell if you want, but I suggest you just move on. HighInBC 15:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Blocking administrator comment: I highly suggest you take HighInBC's advice Kendrick, as I've handed out much longer blocks for similar behavior on other high-visibility political articles in the past week alone. To your "threats": After being here nearly a decade I more than expect users who find their unacceptable behavior stopped to "raise holy hell"... just because a child screams and shouts doesn't mean we are supposed to give them their way. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Retroactively changing archives is at the very least frowned upon

I'm very concerned that any admins might feel that it's OK to retroactively change archived talk pages and, as a separate concern, retroactively changing WP:RfC closures months after the fact, even post-archiving. There's a big template at the top of every archived talk page, {{aan}}, that says not to change them. I'm sorry, @Coffee:, that you don't think the rules -- even if they turn out to be unwritten ones -- don't apply to you and yours (@I JethroBT:). Admins, out of all editors, need to hold themselves to a higher standard, not to see what they should be able to get away with.

But look, I don't want to have to actively try to conjure up a new policy, assuming one doesn't already exist (digging into that). I'm trying to be your Jiminy Cricket here. The voice of your conscience. Please self-revert. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If you seriously don't drop this and start back at this "battle" of yours again after being unblocked, I will be forced to levy severe sanctions on you. You've been told repeatedly to stop this behavior, consider this your final warning. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kendrick. I'm sorry to have caused you so much concern; I think we see this whole situation very differently. I felt that orienting editors to the change in the RfC close was more important than sticking to the template's stipulations in this situation. You might disagree, and I understand the value in keeping archives preserved, but I don't think this matter is worth spending more time on, either. This was a rare situation, and I'm confident that others won't start going around and messing with talk page archives because of my actions. Let's try to move on, OK? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, no worries guys @Coffee:, @I JethroBT:. What you've done is just a trivial matter, but it's uncovered a serious flaw in our project. I'm purely concerned with how the RfC and Talk page archive process could be abused going forward, having seen this crack in the foundation. I promise to leaver your names out of the matter. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Email controversy

Your edit summary says: "lead seems out of date and to only present one side of the matter; tag with NPOV". Would you please say at the article talk page what in particular is out of date, and which side is not presented in the lead? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Two things

I replied to your question at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy, and lest there be any unnecessary drama, I want to make sure you are in possession of two facts:

• Alice and Bob are standard characters for me, and imply nothing about the gender or anything else of participants in any particular discussion. I have a cast of silly characters that I reference in policy discussions, including "Alice Expert" (you'll find that she's been mentioned on dozens of pages now, not always by me), Joe Film, Paul Politician, etc. (The list began with Alice, Bob, Chris, and Daisy, and usually that's more than enough, but sometimes you need a typecast character, like a self-promoting politician. Thus Joe and Paul.  ;-)
• In the most recent two disputes that have been heavily discussed on the policy talk pages, the unsourced material in question was proven to be, upon closer inspection, somewhat inaccurate. However, IMO, both of the challenging editors made the articles worse than they were (in one case, by making the material completely wrong and sourced(!) rather than a bit oversimplified and incomplete, and in another, by blanking material whose factual problems could have been solved with a pretty simple copyedit – the difference between "always X" and "often X"). All of this was resolved when someone finally added inline citations to high-quality sources.

(I'm not watching this page, but feel free to {{ping}} me any time you want.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Abortion alternatives listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Abortion alternatives. Since you had some involvement with the Abortion alternatives redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of vandalism

HiKendrick7. You accused two editors of vandalism in this edit and this edit. Removing content in good faith is never vandalism. Please see WP:NOTVANDALISM. Also, you should not be adding new content that is the subject of an RfC. Also, you are edit warring over this very same content. Please don't do that or you may be blocked from editing.- MrX 14:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Kansas Department of Transportation

Though I agree that Kansas politician are causing a big mess, and diverting money from roads, the reference you added to Kansas Department of Transportation doesn't belong in the intro, instead an official link reference belongs in the intro. Either: add new text and use your reference with it, or move it as a link into the external link section. Please choose or remove. Thanks. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Most sensible thing I've read today

"perhaps influenced by short term decisions by admins on faraway notice boards, which I think, given the long term nature of policy, we should just pause and take a breath about"

Thanks for being the kind of person who thinks about these issues of perspective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Dawn Brancheau

This article has improved over the past few months. No rush with this but I would like to see if it can eventually be taken to B class status. Could you give it a quick look all the way through sometime to see if the prose is both coherent and an easy read? Please let me know if you have any recommendations or edit as you see fit. I propose to eventually obtain a formal peer review after several eyes have looked at it. Thanks. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)