User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/10

Holy Land Map
"A 1759 map entitled The Holy Land, or Palestine, showing not only the Ancient Kingdoms of Judah and Israel in which the 12 Tribes have been distinguished, but also their placement in different periods as indicated in the Holy Scriptures by Tobias Conrad Lotter, Geographer. Augsburg, Germany"

I can't understand Latin, so I was wondering if you could shed some light on a particular point regarding this map. I'm particularly interested in the phrase, "also their placement in different periods as indicated in the Holy Scriptures". Does the Map give an indication of any specific date(s) that it is supposed to depict?

Also, just out of interest regarding your last comment on the talk page, are you aware of any other articles that present a similar fanciful Map in a section dedicated to the actual history of a region. Thanks, Dlv999 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greg Parke (politician)


The article Greg Parke (politician) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Subject is not a notable politician, military officer or diplomat. Fails WP:POLITICIAN; WP:MILNG; WP:MILPEOPLE; WP:DIPLOMAT; WP:NRVE. Five bedroom bedroom B&B built by descendant of notable person seems more WP:SOAP.

While all 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 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 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. Vttor (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Grasping at straws listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grasping at straws. Since you had some involvement with the Grasping at straws redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  Equazcion  ( talk )  17:57, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC) 17:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Kabuki dance for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kabuki dance 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 Articles for deletion/Kabuki dance 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 template from the top of the article. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

RfD about redirect you changed
Hi, there's currently an RfD going on about WP:ESSAY, which you, but I can't understand why you chose to do that. If you could comment on the issue, it would be helpful. -- N Y  Kevin  @191, i.e. 03:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why I reverted your changes to Saros (astronomy)
Your math is just plain wrong. Dividing 6585.3213 / 18 tells us nothing about the period of the saros. You have to multiply the difference you found by 18 to get the correct figure. The correct calculation is 6585.3213/365.242199 (one year) which indeed yields 18 years 11 days. As I did a reversion you will need to re-insert the info about the Antikythera(sp?) mechanism. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

About Job creators
See here.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And here. And I'm apparently a Republican Party Reptile.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was unaware that you had no interest in political satire.  I shan't bother you further.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Kansas City Shuffle
Hello. In March of 2010 you edited Kansas City Shuffle and included a sentence that reads "The relevance to a direction stated at the beginning of a situation has no bearing to the outcome." Could you clarify that sentence, please? I don't understand what you were trying to say in that article. Thank you. 76.105.171.161 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

internal logic listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Internal logic. Since you had some involvement with the internal logic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).

It has been kept, although I do not see any good reason for it on the RfD page. What is your opinion? You said, it should be replaced by some kind of stub for the non-mathematical meaning. And before there is a stub? Regards --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Random IP troll
Keep your politics off Wikipedia, please, OK? Wiki isn't for your political positions on groups, it's for facts. Taking a position on the validity of their message is not what Wiki is about.

Well Done!
You have been awarded the Super Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

Proposed deletion of Chad_Kolton
Hello, Kendrick7. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Chad_Kolton, 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:
 * 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. Thanks, Toasty (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Chad_Kolton
Hello, Kendrick7,

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

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, Toasty (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious
I must say this IP post was hilarious, especially how he tried to clean it up, apparently not knowing there would be a diff.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bush administration (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) 04:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't just do that
And yet I just did. WP:IGNORE -- Kendrick7talk 02:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider this a "final" warning, if you restore the page again you will be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider this a second final warning against restoring the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you do this?
Why did you do this when the result of the AfD was Delete? This is not the correct protocol for overturning a result that you did not agree. Arzel (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reported your continued disregard of the AfD here. Arzel (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I'm confused.


 * "Description: The Admin's Barnstar may be awarded to administrators who made a particularly difficult decision, did a tiresome but needed admin task, cleared some nasty backlog or just to show an administrator that you think they are doing good work in a particular area of "the job" and that their work is appreciated. To be used when other, more specific, barnstars do not apply to the reasons at hand."
 * Naapple (Talk) 07:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of CopBlock.org for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CopBlock.org 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 Articles for deletion/CopBlock.org 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 template from the top of the article. Dmol (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tax returns of Mitt Romney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (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) 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Your recent editing history at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on . Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 04:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Should another admin see fit to accept any unblock request, I suggest they place this user under a topic ban from 2012 Presidential Campaign articles per General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log.--v/r - TP 04:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at . T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no vandalism. You've been here long enough that you should know that, just as you should know that consensus is the name of the game. Keep playing the "joke/nonsense/plainly ridiculous" card and you'll never get unblocked; the next administrator can always decide to block talk page access since all you're doing is digging a deeper hole for yourself. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention that in the . - The Bushranger One ping only 04:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I regret to inform you that I'll have to block you "until your dying breath". Extended to indef, and talk page access revoked. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Indefinite" is a pretty long time. Perhaps we could put a finite expiration contingent to a topic ban on election-related articles. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Indefinite" isn't any specific time at all, neither long nor short. It is simply until the editor makes a convincing unblock request, eg via WP:BASC or WP:UTRS - it could be tomorrow. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Kendrick, I understand why you want some of this material in the article, but edit-warring isn't going to get you there. For that matter, now that you're blocked, insisting that you're going to edit war the moment you get unblocked will only delay that moment indefinitely. I'd like you to agree to 1RR on political articles and request an unblock on that basis. Not only is this better than an indefinite block, it gives you the chance to make your case on the article talk page. Perhaps with some changes to the text and some improved citations, some of what you want is possible. But it's only possible if you put aside your anger and agree to stop edit-warring. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I restored your talk page access so that you can log into this account and make one final unblock request. T. Canens (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Slurpee Summit for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slurpee Summit 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 Articles for deletion/Slurpee Summit 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 template from the top of the article. BDD (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

American occupation of Iraq listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect American occupation of Iraq. Since you had some involvement with the American occupation of Iraq redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Once more with feeling

 * You were warned, at least twice, about edit-warring, and told that continuing could get you blocked - your not understanding that such a block might be indefinite is no excuse for ignoring those warnings and carrying on. So, I'd say you need to knock off this passing part of the blame on to other people for your own poor behaviour. And all this sarcastic "I will go to his home on my hands and knees..." nonsense is just making you sound like a petulant teenager - I wouldn't unblock you while you continue with this attitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm confused: we permablock edit warriors regularly, so claiming you haven't heard of it sounds weird. Edit warring is no different from any other blockable offence: first, you tend to get short blocks, then they escalate until the last one becomes an indef. Max Semenik (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

{{unblock|Oh, please. My previous block was nearly 3 years prior to this one. Three years of good behavior is nearly half of my time editing on the project with a {{unblock reviewed | 1=Oh, please. My previous block was nearly 3 years prior to this one. Three years of good behavior is nearly half of my time editing on the project with a WP:Username, so this is hardly a case of escalating blocks; that the length of my current block was actively WP:Wheel'd over makes my block list look far longer than it truly is. Again, blocks aren't meant to be punitive. I've served my time since this this September 2012 block. Mitt Romney's campaign is moot. Were the same editors, who felt I was mistaken in trying to provide our readers with more than passing information about Mitt Romney's tax returns, to put the entire campaign article up for deletion at this time, I would not lift a finger to stop them. It's upon the ash heap of history, as I said above. What possible harm would I do now on the matter? None. I no longer care. I can not imagine caring at any future date. I've been thoroughly punished and am thoroughly repentant. Having fallen behind now with 6 months worth of edits -- none of which relate to current events or politics -- horrifies me. This block is also cramping my style at Wikisource. If I can't find an admin who will unblock me soon, I don't know what I will do :( -- Kendrick7{{sup|talk}} 05:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC) | accept=I don't know if you are aware of this, but you are really bad at making unblock requests. I am frankly surprised you were allowed to make so many. However, per the remarks below, this one is accepted in the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE, meaning you are being taken at your word that such behavior will nor be repeated, but also that you should be aware that you are pretty much "under the microscope" especially in the realm of BLP articles, which you should probably avoid entirely for a while until you have re-established yourself as a productive editor. Welcome back.  Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)}}
 * As the original blocking administrator, I think Kendrick gets the point by now even if he skates around it. I don't think our job is to break the guy until he submits to 'our rule' and I've got no issues with him being unblocked.  Maybe a BLP topic ban would serve us better than a block.--v/r - TP 14:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Murray Hill Incorporated for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murray Hill Incorporated 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 Articles for deletion/Murray Hill Incorporated 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 template from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be Careful
I am glad to see that you were unblocked (although, how the heck did you get to make 10 denied unblock requests?). Be very careful, for as admins have said, they will be watching you like a hawk, considering you unfortunately, have 20 records in your Block Log. Good luck, sir/madam. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 16:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement of the year
"I worry we are bending over backwards to mislead our readers about something our sources suggest isn't quite true". Of course there was no intended double entendre with your comment LOL..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, I bet its been done at the Pikes Hotel, eesh...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  08:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for the compliment! הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Change for the Cure


A tag has been placed on Change for the Cure 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, 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, you can place a request here. Taroaldo   ✉   01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Change for the Cure for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Change for the Cure 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 Articles for deletion/Change for the Cure 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. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent behaviour
Your recent behaviour surrounding Change for the Cure and its associated Afd is becoming disruptive. The point has been made to you, very clearly, by more than one editor that there is no organisation. Therefore WP:ORG does not apply. Now you have made baseless accusations at the AfD and appear to be starting an edit war over an obviously incorrect stub on the Change for the Cure page. My advice would be to stop. Thank you. Taroaldo   ✉   02:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to be careful when calling others disruptive. You've hounded every opinion on that AfD that wasn't yours.  Take your own advice.--v/r - TP 13:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)