User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/2

Ignatz Lichtenstein
You might find this reference helpful:. Although, I guess if "normal Jews" think that a Jew converting to another religion is grounds for the death penalty, you're still going to have an uphill battle to keep this article. ;)
 * It doesn't have any references to primary material. I've certaintly seen many sources from Concordia, but when they just seem to be pulling things out of thin air they aren't a lot of help. -- Kendrick7talk 05:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian
Regarding you may want to check if there is a Hungarian noticeboard or a cat for wikipedians who speak hungarian and see if any of them can translate for us. JoshuaZ 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Award
I award this Barnstar to Kendrick7 for seeing something redeemable in Ignatz Lichtenstein and working hard in resurrecting it. Jamie Guinn

Re:I was going to say...
Ehh, I understand what you're saying. I was hesitant at first, but don't worry, I will unprotect within a day or two. I just want some progress made on the talk page before this becomes something major.  Nish kid 64  00:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking for members to join Project Boston
I noticed you are from Boston. I am looking for people to join Project Boston in order to clean up and expand wikipedia articles directly related to Boston. If you feel like helping out please join up. Markco1 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
I award you the Current Events Barnstar for your work on Iraq Study Group Report. {Happy Holidays | Cocoaguy (Talk) (edits) 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair
I noticed you nominated Bogdanov Affair for Featured Article status. I have left a much more detailed comment on the FAC page, but as one of the major contributors to that article, I wanted to say thanks. Anville 19:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Anti-Judaism
I've posted a quick reply to your message on my talk page. We can keep the discussions there if you feel like you need to reply. Unfortunately I don't have a magic formula on how this issue can be resolved most efficiently, but disengagement for a short time sounds like a good idea. Keep me up-to-date. ==  Taxico  11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the award. I'm glad you were happy with my edits. ==  Taxico  01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

redirects
thanks for fixing them.now i get it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeshivish (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the merge on International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust
I put the merge tag and blinked for a second and the article was already merged! Thanks! You rock.--Burzum 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging
Your merge in the Iran conference deleted a reference I added, and the current version now shows reference #12 as blank. Please correct this. Sincerely, Jeffpw 09:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I also just noted that you deleted my addition of The Netherlands from the lead para of countries that make Holocaust denial illegal. I am not going to reinstate it, but I wonder why, since it is indeed illegal here (I am Dutch). Jeffpw 09:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, no problem! It's obvious you are a good faith editor, and are doing your best to make this an excellent article on a controversial subject. BTW, I also added a vandalism warning to the user that you warned. POV editors are so irritating.

Interesting. I hardly see why both of you would give the same warning to "somebody". What purpose does that serve? Try to build up consensus? What is your motive? If I am that "somebody", I have told both of you on your talk pages why I changed the page, and why the changes did not constitute a deliberate attempt to mess up Wikipedia.

Also, if I am that user you mention, what POV are you assuming I belong to? This is very odd. Perhaps your assumption that I made changes towards POV led you to believe that I deliberately went against Wikipedia. Honestly, I was trying to make it NPOV, as I considered using a dead link as a source a strange way to wrongly "source" an idea. The Behnam 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Vandalism, Kendrick7
Do not accuse me of vandalism on the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust article. The source used was from the Brunei Times, which was a dead link. Removing statements that are "sourced" to a non-existent source is hardly vandalism! Though I do admit to making a mistake about the "Many Iranians" part, as that was indeed in ref 10. I am not sure how reliable this particular set of articles is (how did they find out the opinion of "many Iranians"? Did they take a poll, or is just "many" by their definition and whim?), but in retrospect, I should have put more attention into that particular reference.

The current version properly sources both of the ideas, so it makes more sense to include them. Part of what I did was right, and in any case, this was not deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia. However, you should take back for unjust accusation against me. The Behnam 17:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks! The Behnam 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on the Holocaust Conference page
pasted from other discussion there, to make my point to you (it is off topic for the article talk page): You might not find that limit on freedom of speech so "weird" if you lived in a country where you were forced daily to remember that hundreds of thousands of your countrymen were, in the not so recent past, rounded up and forced to the gas chambers simply because of their religion. For those of us in Europe, the Holocaust is not some abstract, intellectual debating point, but a reality for which we still see the consequences today. I would also like to point out that in the U.S.A., speech is not completely free. One cannot advocate assassination there, and likewise, discussion of potential terrorist activities, even if not carried out, can lead to jail time. Jeffpw 21:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, you are right -- sedition and calling upon people to break the law isn't protected speech in the U.S. I still find the European position strange and counterproductive. Why turn these people into martyrs? Why give rebellious teenagers the idea that denying the holocaust is "cool" (in-so-much-as breaking the law is "cool")? And now it gives Iran an opportunity to seem progressive by comparison. I just don't see comparitive the harm in allowing holocaust deniers to subsist in their stupidity unharassed. -- Kendrick7talk 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * your reply once again shows you have not internalized the magnitude of the Holocaust. Let me put it this way: The populations of the USA and Europe are roughly similar. Imagine that 9 million citiznes of the USA were systematically murdered by the government, and then 30 years after it happened, people started "investigating" it to prove it never ocurred, or if it did, it really wasn't so bad after all. Imagine further that these people "investigating" had a bias against the group that was murdered, and investigation of them showed alliances with organizations which wished to murder that group once again. you might have an interest in seeing and revisionism/denial of the original genocide made criminal. It is not only dangerous, but an insult to those innocent who were murdered. But as I said, living in the USA, so far removed from the events that happened, it is probably more of an intellectual debate point to you than an experiential one. For the record, a great deal of family was murdered in the Holocaust, so I am aware that it is an actual event, and I am aware as well ofthe danger of allowing hate-speech to go unchecked. Jeffpw 22:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we've never prosecuted anyone for claiming slavery was a great idea, or that slaves were quite happy in that institution; yet a song to that effect was for a long while the state song of Virginia -- and I even sang it in elementary school choir while growing up there (despite our teacher being African-American). Of course the idea is absurd, all the more reason no law should be required; but I would hope this might demonstrate that there's a real cultural divide here that goes far beyond which country has which skeleton's in their closet. -- Kendrick7talk 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the holocaust conference page yet, but only happened upon your conversation and found it interesting. I think that a holocaust deniers conference is a good idea - Mahmood must have learned something.  At least now he doesn't say he wants to wipe Israel off the map, he says he knows the Zionist regime will be wiped out.  There is a big difference.  Yes, let them rant and have a conference - they will eventually realize their errors.  The thing that feeds the fire is exactly the same as what Bush tries to do here - namely, make everyone feel that if they do not support him in whatever he does, we are unpatriotic.  Well Olmert wants everyone to feel that if they do not support his policies, then they are not good jews or are not good zionists.  No one should be made to feel that they have to support a government in order to support their faith, country, religion, etc.  It is a political tool for them, and much like Jews must say that separatist/zionist policy is wrong (I'm not saying that the right to have an Israeli state is wrong, but just how you treat your neighbors and citizens after the fact), Americans have to stand up and say that oppressing others so that we can be safe and rich is not okay.  That is why we have individual conscience. Pco 06:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

not binding
Whether or not Rabbi Metzger's statement is binding (which it isn't) is irrelevant for the "Response" section of the article. The fact that it says so in the ref doesn't make it more relevant for this article. As it stood, all it did was act as a needless disclaimer. --DLand TALK 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo on Holocaust article
I am not going to delete that pic you posted in "Atendees", and I actually think it adds greatly to the article. However, as I said on the talk page, it is a violation of WP:FU, and it is sure to be deleted soon. You might want to go to the same site I got the top image from (click on the pic to get the link). They have almost the same pic and it is freely licensed. Cheers, Jeffpw 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Just to make sure you are aware of it, you are now at or above the WP:3RR limit on the lead section of the Iranian Holocaust conference article. I let you know this so you will not be blocked. I further hope you will not attempt to violate the spirit of the rule by waiting 15 hours before you reinsert that content, and discuss the proposed changes on the article's talk page, instead. Jeffpw 10:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kendrick
Just wanted to thank you for your input on Zionism talk. Please stay in the debate with us. Thanks. Pco 06:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please comment again on Zionism talk
I have posted a "Modern Zionism" which could also be called "21st Century Zionism" I really don't mind either way. Please review and comment on as many of the sentences as possible, since I will probably have many who just say POV, POV,POV, when I think it is very neutral and only restates the content I found from BBC, Guardian UK, etc. I still have to relocate a few links on things that I know are true (UN Resolutions, wikipedia links, etc.). Thanks a lot.

What's funny is, even though I am getting attacked by a few Jewish people for the content I add, I think I am doing all Jewish people a favor by making others know the truth of how politicians twist religious ideals (like zionism) into damaging policy. Pco 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Israeli art students
Yes, the content was essentially identical - it was about the very same non-notable conspiracy theory; if anything, it was worse than the one deleted. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamas-Fatah

 * Ok, I undestand your move attempt.
 * I haven't moved to 2006 Palestinian civil skirmishes -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Zionism
Hi Kendrick -- I just wanted to ask, I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out what the proper way of dealing with a situation like over on the Zionism page, relating to the first sentence. Have you happened to see the situation? Basically, I've been trying to push the issue, but it seems there's a very partisan group that has just stopped caring, and is going to revert anything further, despite the fact that I think the sentence is actually worse now than it was before. Subsequently, SlimVirgin, one of the primary antagonists, decided to follow me over to the Folke Bernadotte page to start an edit war against me over there, where she was quickly followed and assisted by Jayjg and Humus Sapiens. Obviously, being new, I'm not really sure what the etiquette is, or when you have to throw in the towel. It seems like a pretty ridiculous situation, though, especially with SV. I gather you're an admin: do I have any recourse? At what point would I have one? Any advice? Many thanks, Mackan79 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Kendrick, thanks for the resonse, I saw you were out of town. Happy New Year, Mackan79 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on December 30 2006 to Alphonso_de_Spina
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 10:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)