User talk:Kennvido/Archive 1

Hurricane Sandy
This is your only warning. I see that you have been changing formats, changing info, and putting stuff in the wrong place. I have warned you before about this. It causes extra work for others to fix what you have messed up. The next time this happens, you may be blocked from editing. United States Man (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, will always double check and sorry for the extra work. Again, my apologies to all. (Kennvido (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC))
 * To be honest, the warning United States Man gave you seems a bit harsh and over-officious. We are supposed to assume "good faith" on Wikipedia, and a more helpful approach would be more likely to assist inexperienced editors to "get it right".  Wikipedia is full of people who can be dictatorial and consider that they "own pages".  Don't let them get you down, and don't let them discourage you.  We all learn as we go along, and we all make mistakes along the way (even the most experienced editors).  Skinsmoke (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You are very kind to take the time and I appreciate your thoughts. I don't like it when members like Onionmon keeps reposting things, on Hurricane Sandy, that others, who have a bio on here and can be contacted, don't listen. I do my best to listen and learn to be a better poster here. You can see, I post a lot and I think do an okay job the majority of the time. Since the 'nasty' warning you referred to, which I deleted, was put up, yes I do get discouraged and well, angry. But, I try to take it in stride. I know I do my best to make things accurate and cited…Plus am thankful for members like you. No smoke, truth. Again, thanks...Kennvido (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. We've all been victims of the "leave my page alone brigade" at times.  Sometimes, it's just that they are a bit tired or exasperated, and lash out.  A Welsh editor once had a right go at me over something I had done and, I admit, I bit back accusing him of having a "queeny fit" and letting his racism show.  We are now the greatest of friends on Wikipedia, have enormous respect for each other, and have collaborated on a number of articles, so you never know.....  Skinsmoke (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never really got into it with anyone. I can't waste my time most of the time. Just some things set me off, like the dogmatic members you talked about of people like Onionmon. I started the NECC page and ASKED for folks to contribute and don't think it's MY page. I DO check it, as other pet pages, to see that the cites are right or even given. And I will help others when a cite is called for... I'll look for one to validate the particular. Well, be good my friend and God Bless.

Check out what Anonymouse321 did for me

Hello, Kennvido. I (and probably many others) really appreciate all your work you have done to Hurricane Sandy, and I will give you this:

The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar For your excellent contributions to Tropical cyclone-related articles. In particular, for your work on Hurricane Sandy. Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't that thoughtful?

Kennvido (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Updating cyclone information
Thank you for adding the information for Sandy's 16 advisory to the articles. I noticed that you had a few mistakes and forgot to update some of the information. When updating the information, please make sure that you are updating all of the information. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up... God Bless and have a great day.Kennvido (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make sure that you are updating all of the fields. I noticed some things that still weren't switched over when the HPC issued their first advisory. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Hurricane Sandy
Hello, Kennvido. I (and probably many others) really appreciate all your work you have done to Hurricane Sandy, and I will give you this:

Thank you for your efforts! Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

OMG... I don't expect anything... I love contributing good material as I am a native NY'er. I want our NE and Mid Americans to know they can come to Wiki and get GOOD VALID INFO and hex the naysayers of info on OUR GREAT site... Thanks and God Bless and take care of our Americans.Kennvido (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I came too late to the party, but not too late I hope to say keep up the good work. TMLutas (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy and dates...
First, thanks for all your great work adding info into the article! One minor quibble: when you add days like "Monday" and "Tuesday" in, it's very ambiguous. After Monday or Tuesday has passed, that day no longer makes sense...making the article out of date and incorrect. So it would be appreciated if you could use dates like "October 30" or "Tuesday, October 30," so that it remains unambiguous and encyclopedic, without need for future editing once the date has passed. Thanks. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 08:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but feel free to do it. It cuts out the middle man, ME. :) Kennvido (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, honestly, that doesn't really work well. It's not quite fair to expect other editors to have to research and correct every instance...when you can simply use "October 29" or "October 30" instead of "Monday" or "Tuesday". It just creates significant extra workload in the future, for other editors, to go through and weed out all the references to days of the week that are no longer relevant. So PLEASE use a correct, encyclopedic date reference. While we are indeed writing this article as if it's breaking news, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER:  Wikipedia is also not written in news style. That means it needs to be written in an encyclopedic style. Even if it's a few more characters to type. (Edit: And sorry if I'm grumpy; I think that means it's time to sleep. I do appreciate all the additions you've made to the article!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 08:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're serious? This is a day by day event. I would think no research would have to be done. ALL Mondays and Tuesday here are only today and tomorrow. But, I don't get angry with this, I just fix. Have a sparkling sleep my friend!!!! Kennvido (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, think of it this way: it's quite likely this event will have effects lasting into next week. Thus, we'll suddenly have multiple Mondays and Tuesdays, if information is added in in that fashion...that's one place difficulty comes in. (Even if it's not a huge deal right now.) But I see you fixed those date references, so thank you for doing so! – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 08:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I do see your point and will, as you see, not argue. God, I hope these poor people don't have this storm linger over a week. But, I KNOW when this part of the East Grid goes down... it's a looooong time to fix... stay safe. I'm in East Central Florida, and it just brushed us here. How about you? Kennvido (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah; as much as I'd *like* this to be over quickly, it doesn't seem like it will... I'm a few dozen miles from Boston; we're just getting some rain and wind so far, but that's definitely going to pick up...it shouldn't be too bad (we're used to our snowstorms up here), unless the power goes out for an extended period; repairing the power grid can take forever with a large outage, like you said. Thanks for the well wishes! – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 08:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Take care my friend. I've been through many storms down here and a lot on the air for radio and TV. THIS AIN'T NO NORMAL STORM!!!! Like I need to tell you that. God's Speed... Kennvido (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Indenting on talk pages
If you add a colon to the beginning of a line, it will indent the line and make it easier to follow the conversation. Here is an example:

Hi, this is a Wikipedia talk page. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What is a Wikipedia talk page? User ABCDEFG12345
 * A talk page is a place where users can talk about the main page. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's cool! User ABCDEFG12345

I knew that, but it's already good. It indents the other person's total reply already. Doesn't it show that on your side as well? Kennvido (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * WOW...what's with all the pictures on the Hurricane Sandy page? Way too many or suggest please that they group them towards the bottom. Thanks. Kennvido (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane Sandy
Since the storm just passed, a lot of people want to throw everything into the main article and have it right there instead of the sub-articles. When the sub-articles are there, the main article is meant to summarize what's in the sub-article and link to it. But, for the time being due to the sheer interest in the storm, there is constant input on the main article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You can see my many contribs to this article and the hours and hours I stayed up watching and entering, I am highly interested in the subject. I put my updates in the sub-articles, the after the storm info, and ONLY go to the main to add something I think should be there... or to check if I can help with new things added, you know, be helpful. When do you think they will do it like other subs and who will make that decision?

Kennvido (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost sure this is not how talk pages are supposed to be used, but I'm a reporter from Popular Science and can't figure out how else to get ahold of you! My email is dan@popsci.com--I'd love to chat about the Hurricane Sandy Wikipedia page if you're interested! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.234.254 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * AHhhhhh Toll House yeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssss thank you...

Kennvido (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so very much Kennvido (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy, Redux
Hi there Kennvido. First of all, I want to thank you for your extensive contributions to the Hurricane Sandy article. You've done tremendous work improving the article. However, I disagree somewhat with your repeated deletion of the global warming references. I say somewhat because in case you didn't notice, I previously deleted a verison of the section that I recently re-added. Personally, I would also prefer not to mention it in the article because, while AGW is quite real and the most serious threat to the future livelihood of my generation, the peer-reviewed literature on the relation with tropical cyclones has been a fairly ambiguous. However, I'm compelled by where the reliable sources go, and a hell of a lot of them are making the AGW connection, however dubious it may be e.g.. Could you find a reliable source disputing the connection? That would be a much better alternative to deleting the well-sourced comments about Sany's connection with AGW. The talk page seems strongly in favor of including the material in some way, shape, or form, and I feel that my edit does so without placing undue emphasis on the subject.... Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * GW speculation is just that. I understand where you are coming from, but in this case ALL storms, that ANY person who takes GW as Gospel, should enter it in many large storm articles going back at Andrew and possibly prior to that. I feel as I said, GW ought to be discussed on GW. Mention hurricanes there. I am should no one will delete it IF you can back it up with CONCRETE FACTS. Thank you for your kudos. Have a sparkling day my friend.

Kennvido (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey here's a thought... state your case regarding the hurricane, with PROVEN FACTS over on GW page, where it states, The effect on hurricane activity is less certain.[128] and put a link down in the See Also on the bottom of the Hurricane Sandy article... Kennvido (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy damages box
What do you mean by "please leave this way so the references don't eclipse the stat board unless you can do it another way"? The table looked fine before. Nothing was being covered up. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It was here, the last two of the five refs ran into and over the words in the box. It's not by you? Kennvido (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, what browser are you using? Inks.LWC (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Chrome and never had a prob before and as you know I've been on this page a lot for a week. Kennvido (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. OK.  Well if there's a display problem, let's keep it centered as it is under your last edit, for now.  But if we can figure out a way to make it work right-aligned, that'd be better, as right now it just creates unused whitespace on the page, and the article is already lengthy as is. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Kennvido (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Your recent editing history at Hurricane Sandy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. ''You're at 3 reverts now. I really don't want to see you blocked, because you have contributed a lot to the article, but you need to let the GW issue be resolved on the talk page.'' Inks.LWC (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but it must be left off the page until the situation is resolved... that is what would be fair and just for everyone. I would hate to see all the WORK I put in to this article cause me to be blocked over this unresolved GW belief. I believe that is fair. Hey here's a thought... state the case regarding the hurricane, with PROVEN FACTS over on GW page, where it states, The effect on hurricane activity is less certain.[128] and put a link down in the See Also on the bottom of the Hurricane Sandy article... MY MAIN POINT IS THIS IS CONJECTURE AND NOT PROVEN FACT FACT FACT... I DIDN'T THINK WIKI REPORTS ON POSSIBLES, ONLY ON FACT!!!! I've been scolded at for that in the past...

Kennvido (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your belief as to what should or shouldn't be in the article won't exempt you from an edit-warring block. I'd back off if I were you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and others don't have to BACK OFF... The GW science that has NOT be proven CAN be put in the article... My belief is based of FACT...at to this particular storm, NO again NO proof exist now. Kennvido (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that attitude. Actually, given the many reverts by so many editors, I'm seriously considering locking the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you started with an attitude towards me by telling me to 'back off!' Basically shut up and give in.... I thought I was a huge help regarding this article...evidently not so much when it comes to politics on this site and with many editors that can block me.

Kennvido (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not grasping the fundamental point. I'm not telling you to back off from expressing your views. I'm telling you to back off from reverting. Your work on the article and your beliefs as to what is correct do not permit you to edit-war. That's policy, and every editor must adhere to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And feel free to discuss it here, where we have a discussion currently going on to solve the problem: Talk:Hurricane Sandy. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I came within a hair's breadth of locking the article, but things seemed to have calmed down a bit, and I'm heartened that you're talking about it. Plus, I'm going off-wiki, so I won't be locking it tonight. Good luck with your discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to lower myself to the level of some all-encompassing conspiracy nutcase, but what about H.A.A.R.P. and its potential to change weather patterns being mentioned? There are those that will point at that causing bigger and more costly storms. Kennvido (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Are you comparing HAARP conspiranoia with climate change? You political views are clouding your judgement. As an editor you should be using sources, rather than injecting your political beliefs. Wikipedia is not your pro GOP blog. bcnbill


 * I'm NOT G.O.P. I am a Libertarian. You would have KNOWN that it you read my bio. HAARP's are 'thought' to cause earthquakes and other phenomena, including weather disturbances. Read about it and learn. And I repeat, I DO believe in climate change, but the same that the earth has been putting out for millions of years. Oh, since you don't sign your talk page as you should, here. Put in four tildes at the end. Thanks for the note. :)Kennvido (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New York
Hello Kennvido:

As the article's first intro sentence, I'd written, "The effects of Hurricane Sandy in New York in 2012 were severe, particularly in New York City, its northern suburbs, and Long Island." This was my source:

You watered down that sentence and wrote in your edit summary, "I changed before because it was NOT just the Northern area, in fact Staten Island the hit the worst and it is SW of Manhattan Island. NYC usually means Manhattan, I know, I was born there :))"

Response:
 * One need not be a native New Yorker (as you and I both are) to know some people sometimes (not "usually") associate "Manhattan" with "New York City". But we New York natives, especially, should also know, as the New York City article explains: "New York City consists of five boroughs, each of which is a state county.[21] The five boroughs—The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island—were consolidated into a single city in 1898.[22][23]" Additionally, as Borough_(New_York_City) further explains: "New York City is often referred to collectively as the five boroughs; the term is used to refer to New York City as a whole unambiguously, avoiding confusion with any particular borough or with the greater metropolitan area. The term is often used by politicians to counter a frequent focus on Manhattan and, thereby, to place all five boroughs on equal footing. In the same vein, the term outer boroughs refers to all the boroughs excluding Manhattan, even though the geographic center of the city is along the Brooklyn and Queens border." The upshot: my reference to NYC included all 5 boroughs, including Staten Island.


 * Also, I'm unsure why you wrote "it was NOT just the Northern [sic] area." Perhaps you misread my sentence; it mentions NYC first (which, I'll reiterate, includes all 5 boroughs), the northern suburbs second, and Long Island third (which, I realize you - a native Staten Islander - know is southeast of the city).

- Froid 01:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, I understand your point, but those not lucky enough to be born there like us would think just north of the city really got hit. You and I know that S.I. is SW of the city. Thats why I put it the way I did. Let's say the five boroughs then and S.I. got hit the worst. That would be correct. Or leave it like it is now with suburbs. Can we agree? Kennvido (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Very....
...strange behavior from you. --KurtR (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Only because I am being shown strange behavior. IF there is to be a civil discussion regarding whether or not GW should be on the page or somewhere else, it should NOT be ON the page until a final decision is made. JMO

Kennvido (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who makes the final decision? An editor who subscribes to the now discredited, fringe ideology of climate denial? Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no need to attack Kenvvido. I think the "final decision" is being discussed at Talk:Hurricane_Sandy. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. He should not be attacked, he should be topic banned and blocked. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. Good call. 24 hours was a slap on the wrist, in my opinion. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There's the rub!!!! The decision maker's belief. I don't want an extreme believer or a non believer in GW to make the final decision. That is not fair and just. It will be years to PROVE anything. Why not put a disclaimer that SOME BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE before the statement in the article. That would satisfy everyone IMHO. Kennvido (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Kennvido, you are out of line. You are now editing in a disruptive manner and these last two edits are entirely deserving of an indefinite block. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think those two edits mean he needs to be indefinitely blocked then YOU are the one that needs to be indefinitely blocked. Someone should watch you to see how many people you go around intimidating and harassing every day as a "volunteer."   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.28.126 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am just trying to mediate and be fair to all, which is why I put the question mark. I am done with this. Kennvido (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no "both sides" to appease on this issue. On wikipedia we do not give weight to what some non-experts and paid advocates think in comparison to people who actually know what they are talking about. Per WP:FRINGE, fringe theories are not given weight in mainstream topics. Denialism may be popular among Joe the plumber in the US (but not amongst scientists), but wikipedia is a world encyclopedia. Global warming is not contentious amongst scientists anywhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * More coverage . IRWolfie- (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, IRWolfie, for your rational contributions to this topic, and for the admirable restraint you have demonstrated in "suffering fools gladly." Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So many tools, so little time. Kennvido (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

F. Sherwood Rowland
Saw this external pressure being put on you and thought I would post here. Remember how F. Sherwood Rowland proved chlorofluorocarbons contribute to ozone depletion? Now that was some sweet piece of science! Whatever happen to those days? Now, all you need is a well crafted moniker that applies no matter happens and dangle a ton of research money to get scientists to make ad hock statements related to that well crafted moniker and, bingo, there's your science. The Wikipedia article on climate change states that it is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. How can any scientist have already provided analysis regarding Hurricane Sandy's part in the statistical distribution of weather patterns measured over decades? The storm just happened! Now what passes for science is - "its possible." There was a change in the climate that resulted in Hurricane Sandy, therefore Hurricane Sandy was a result of climate change. Even the goofy fringe theories put more thought into their analysis. The climate always changes, it gets warmer, it gets colder, it changes. In Wikipedia, it is important that we look for the science and, if necessary, wait for the science rather than accept science speculation merely because it is an opinion someone who is capable of performing scientific analysis. When scientific analysis is published regarding Hurricane Sandy's part in the statistical distribution of weather patterns measured over decades that establish effects of climate change / global warming on Hurricane Sandy, information from those high-quality reliable sources should be added to the Hurricane Sandy article. Until then, Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for science speculation. Hang in there. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See, I knew rational people existed that were not afraid to speak out. I wish some people here would know the ONLY reason I deleted GW from the article is that man caused GW to enlarge storms is NOT a proven fact. It was NOT a political stance or statement. Those out there can choose to believe or doubt me just as the man made GW speeding up things to create bigger and better storms. I guess GW had a hand in the 1935 Labor Day hurricane and The Long Island Express of 1938, just three years apart as well? Freak storms and weather occur all the time. But, nowadays it so much easier to tag things 'caused by GW', rather than to unpredictable Mother Nature. Oh, and it SOME people acquire the 1 percent status doing it we must remember. To me, it's water off a duck's bill. Thank you for the kind words. Kennvido (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a fine straw man argument you've got there. Question: who was it that said anthropogenic global warming was a "proven fact"? Answer: nobody. Two things: there are no "proven facts" in science, and Jesus didn't ride dinosaurs.  If you're going to write like a science journalist, then I expect you to act like one.  Please start by reading evolution as fact and theory: "In science, however, a fact is not a statement of absolute certainty. Scientific knowledge necessarily abandons the concept of absolute certainty to remain consistently conjectural, hypothetical." Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your moniker in Latin, means greenness, nuff said about YOUR belief system. I respectfully ask you not to address me again. I will not answer. Kennvido (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ken" in Gaelic means "handsome" or "sprung from fire". Are you hitting on people on Wikipedia and using it as a dating service or are you a pyromaniac?  Try reading the article on viriditas before spouting off nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I will answer this from you... Gotcha and hit a nerve. I took Latin and don't need to read the article. Why? Did you create it? That's rhetorical. You picked your name because you are a 'GREEN' person. Good for you, I'm all for saving and helping our planet, but I don't express that 'opinion' here. You don't need to spew your environmental political beliefs, or options, on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to facts as Joe Friday would say. Now let's agree to disagree and Have sparkling day!Kennvido (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't play "gotcha" games. I've been asked why I created this name many, many times over the last eight years, and each time I've answered "because I'm a science fiction fan".  Did you even read the article on viriditas? Why would I agree to disagree with your error about my user name? You're not making any sense. My user name refers to the usage by Kim Stanley Robinson, not to any environmental politics.  Surely, you can't be this simpleminded, can you?  If you had bothered to read his books, you would discover that the usage of viriditas in the book has nothing to do with whether someone is green but whether they believe in terraforming. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope you included accusing me of using this site as a place to find dates. "Ken" in Gaelic means "handsome" or "sprung from fire". Are you hitting on people on Wikipedia and using it as a dating service or are you a pyromaniac? If not, I will...Kennvido (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Difficulty dealing with ambiguity and an inability to understand reductio ad absurdum noted. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2012 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope you included accusing me of using the site as a pick up place. If you are an honest person you did. If you did not, you are not and honest person.Kennvido (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do I really need to explain the joke to you? Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to keep up this petty sniping on both our parts. I believe if you and I work TOGETHER, we will accomplished good things here. The Romney stuff is already in discussion, prior to my questioning it AND I stated for all to see I deleted it twice. Have a sparkling day Viriditas! Kennvido (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Which explains why you reported me at ANI and didn't notify me. Got it. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's the point, you DIDN'T get it and kept on going... even denying the accusation! I'm tired of wasting my time when I and you could be doing other productive things to add to the site or just relaxing. Now, I hope you are ready to stop. Kennvido (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ken, please try to follow along. You said, "I do not wish to keep up this petty sniping", yet you then proceeded to report me to ANI and did not inform me about it. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The sniping IS the back and forth on talkpages. That needs to stop. I will be fair and take it down to appease you. How can I do it? Kennvido (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just cut and delete. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This means the negative tet a tet will cease? And we can work together in a civil manner. Kennvido (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, but my criticism regarding science journalism up above is something I hope you take into account. If you are going to write about science, at least do so within the right philosophical framework. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you leading me to believe you're a scientist? And what is your definition of the right philosophical framework? Your individual belief or a general political agenda or a general universal neutral term which is?


 * Ken, you're doing it again. You keep making these strange associations that just don't exist.  I already explained the problem with your statement about global warming up above.  It's not a proven fact because there are no proven facts in science.  Again,  "In science, however, a fact is not a statement of absolute certainty. Scientific knowledge necessarily abandons the concept of absolute certainty to remain consistently conjectural, hypothetical."  That's the framework you need to start with.  Please stop saying things like "I deleted GW from the article is that man caused GW to enlarge storms is NOT a proven fact".  There are no "proven facts" in science.  Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * FACT: Gravity works, just ask an astronaut. They go in space and float. So, Newton law is not fact? I don't have to prove gravity works, you must prove it doesn't. FACT: Inertia Disprove that? FACT: Speed of light, please disprove.Kennvido (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me when you've found a graviton or when you've directly detected a gravitational wave. "Facts" change all the time, as one can see by our physical theories modified by general relativity. There are no "proven facts", just better and better ways of attempting to understand the world. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can only understand it 'at the time' and accept it as the truth. But, again you just pointed to some Wikilinks. Facts are facts at the time if proven. MY POINT GW is a 'theory' not a fact. And why connect that theory with climate change... every thinking person KNOWS there IS climate change. How about the atmosphere getting warmer due to the heat of the inner earth? I believe that can happen OR is happening... Kennvido (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These are all theories. When you say "gravity works", that's shorthand for "the theory of gravity works".  I don't think we should accept anything as "truth", and science doesn't operate that way. Truth is certainly a worthy goal, but we can only take the journey towards its destination—we will never arrive there.  As you are already aware, we "connect that theory with climate change" because "scientists are more than 90% certain" that humans are causing it.  I'm not sure what you mean by "inner earth".  Are you talking about the Hollow Earth hypothesis? Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, I thought we had an understanding as I REMOVED my complaint that you would remove your warring complaint against me. I feel used and mislead by you. Enjoy Pearl Harboring me?

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Hurricane Sandy. 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. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your unblock request is inherently contradictory. On the one hand, you make accusations against Viriditas and insist that they be blocked if you're not unblocked. Viriditas did not edit-war and your supposed "deal" with them is irrelevant to your block. Shifting blame and attacking other editors are never good ideas in an unblock request. You also say that you "need to update the Hurricane Sandy" article. Yet, on the other hand, you say you won't behave this way again. That last promise rings hollow in light of what precedes it. Frankly, in my view, your "need" to edit the article appears to blind you to the rules here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ken, I found that the reasons you were blocked by Bbb23 are listed here. Your request to be unblocked should 1. show you understand what you have been blocked for, e.g., blocked for less-than 3RR continuous reversions to POV-push, edit summaries that raise Edit summary dos and don'ts concerns, and not showing/ acknowledging an understanding of the principles involved in collaborative editing that Bbb23 provided to you. Specifically, Bbb23 appears mostly focused on your expressing your views by editing the article (not preferred method) rather than your expressing your views by editing the talk page (preferred method) (e.g., "back off from reverting" the edits to the article). Your request to be unblocked should 2. address what you have been blocked for by explaining how your future contributions will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. In sum, the two big issues appear to be edits to the article itself (not the article talk page) and your use of edit summaries and your request to be unblocked should focus on these and only these (e.g., not behavior of others). Regarding the edit summaries, let Bbb23 know that you read over Civility, focusing on edit summaries, and that your edit summaries will merely "summarize your contributions" as noted at Help:Edit summary. As for editing the article, just express your plans and how those match Bbb23's requests. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this users work on the parts that did not irk this users political views. HOWEVER.... a lot of people are working on the article and this user had such difficulty with NPOV when his political bell was rung that I was working on my own ANI complaint when this block went thru I learned this block had gone thru.  If there is a further appeal I think it should also include a persuasive reason why it should not be read as an eagerness to get back into the fight out of a feeling of article ownership and why the overall wikipedia project urgently needs this user back on that article more than it needs this user to take the remaining block time to study the core principles and workings of WP:CONSENSUS  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And also the workings of WP:FRINGE as well, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * After thinking about it, I'm ok with it. A got a day off and could fully enjoy football on TV and not constantly check on updates for the article. Even went out with friends, went to sleep at a reasonable hour and just got up. Also realize, life does not revolve around posting on Wikipedia. You actually did me a favor. Now, when I come back, I'll be rested. Besides, coverage on this tragic event has disappeared regarding the after effects on the victims rebounding from their loses and circumstances and turned into a circus now dealing with politics, politicians, including the election, and GW. The clear focus on the hurricane and impact on the victims has dissipated as did the storm. I probably won't be adding a lot anymore to article and subs cause the caring has stopped and the partition politicking has taken over. So sad. I am honored though to to Wiki members who did appreciate my coverage for the Wikipedia article. To them I say thank you. Kennvido (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On science
This is in response to someone of the statement you have made here which demonstrate a misunderstanding of how science works etc
 * This is probably a fruitless effort, but I will try nonetheless. Science can not say what is objectively true. Science can say what is false. Science closes on what is true by finding out what is false. Scientific theories are consistent with the evidence to date. It can not be known with all certainity if it will be consistent with the next test. Science improves on itself inexorably. When we say something is a theory, that does not mean there is not insurmountable evidence behind it, a scientific theory is not the same as the word theory as used in day to day language. A scientific theory must be consistent with scientific facts. The most important thing is that you can't "prove" things about the universe, you can only gather insurmountable evidence that something is true.


 * For example, by analogy (a classic example I think), if you have a table that appears to have a circular top, you can definitively say it is not square. You can not definitively say it is a circular tabletop though; on closer examination it may be just off a perfect circle. If we say it is circular, we can test this further, by looking more closely. It's a falsifiable statement. No matter how much insurmountable evidence we have for the circular tabletop, it is not a formal proof. What we can say is that it closely approximates a circular tabletop. If new evidence arises showing it is not circular, say you notice a piece of the table had cracked off the edge, the new description of the tabletop is still consistent with the previous evidence.


 * Now to an actual example: classical mechanics works very well in its realm of applicability, In the past, it had insurmountable evidence in the areas it was tested in. But then, despite working in all other areas it had been tested in, on the atomic scale it was seen that classical mechanics isn't consistent with the evidence. Something which was regarded as making statements of fact, is seen to not be the full picture. Then quantum theory came along. quantum theory has an insurmountably large abundance evidence in atomic scales and it can be shown that classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum theory via the correspondence principle. That classical mechanics wasn't "correct", isn't a flaw of science, and it doesn't mean we don't know anything about anything. Classical mechanics is still used today because it's predictions are very good where it is valid to be used.


 * That science isn't static doesn't mean that the things we found out to be wrong, are suddenly correct, they still have to be consistent with the evidence. Your specific beliefs about climate change are not based on the scientific method, or deferrence to the relevant experts who do look at the evidence. You say statements like "How about the atmosphere getting warmer due to the heat of the inner earth", but you posit no reason why this warming effect has been increasing of late, you give no reason for your beliefs or evidence that agrees with your assertions. Your objections about what you think is not true, are ideological. Thus you will posit any hypothesis that supports that position. Ironically, you rely on appeals to authority, when you reject what the actual climate scientists say. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote Isaac Asimov in his essay The relativity of wrong: "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." To quote myself responding to some nonsense from a fundie a few years ago: "Ultimately, if someone takes a position against a scientific consensus without first understanding the science at the level of a PhD and without then offering a valid alternative theoretical formulation, they're not worth the conversation."  Wrt Wikipedia, they shouldn't be editing articles on said topics either  Sædon talk  02:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is fruitless. Why don't you concerning yourself with the victims of the storm. Your time would be so much better spent IMHO. Kennvido (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is rich coming from a guy who...well, we all read the article about you; you're hardly in a position to criticize how other spend their time. Sædon talk  03:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats, you can read... Kennvido (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request
Please note that I have submitted a request for arbitration enforcement against you concerning serious violations of the climate change discretionary sanctions in force on articles related to climate change. The request is at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a thank you note

 * Thanks for keeping the Yahoo suite of articles updated. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Kennvido (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work on the Hurricane Sandy article. The Hurricane Sandy article had been viewed about 1,600,000 times between October 25th and November 5 by mothers and fathers and other family members concerned about their loved ones. Your efforts to provide storm information in the Wikipedia article most certainly gave them significant comfort and helped shepherd many people. It is a sad state where Wikipedians try to utilize such a horrific tragedy as a political opportunity to take advantage of those in need. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to carry on ideological battles. Every moment information resides within a Wikipedia article is not sacred. As an encyclopedia, there is plenty of time to add information. Come Wednesday, November 7, 2012, after the United States presidential election, 2012, there will no longer be the shockingly ravenous external and internal political forces bearing down to include and detail ad hoc global warming information in the Hurricane Sandy article. Eventually, that crowd will move on to the next crisis political opportunity and the Hurricane Sandy article then can be improved overtime with scientific analysis on that storm's roll in climate change. Overall, your efforts lead Wikipedia in helping so many people in their time of need was very admirable. Best regards, Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I tell you, with ALL these WARNINGS and my boot for 24 to tell you the truth, I don't feel touchy feely things from many members and editors, who use THEIR political beliefs to shut me down and mask much by stating 'the rules' say. So many many more would be penalized IF they used those 'rules' for everyone who don't roll with the politically correct flow. For saying that, some will find an rule to bump me off again. All I am doing is what I've done for decades... reporting to keep those folks you mentioned informed. I always thought Wiki was fact based only. I'll probably get slammed for writing this as well. Oh well, such is life in the big city. But just to hear from members like you, all my sleepless time was worth it. Thanks again my friend. Kennvido (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WARNING - original research guidelines
It appears you have advised an editor to engage in original research. Editors are not supposed to evaluate rightness or wrongness of reliable sources as I replied in that thead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So much for giving out valid info. I don't understand. It's stated in many places that free gas was being given out, so I informed the member and put it in with a valid ref. What did I do so wrong? I don't get the 'original research'. Please explain, so I don't do it in the future. Thanks. Kennvido (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not about the subject matter under discussion. This is not about whether I think the info is valid or is not valid and it is not about validity or invalidity because that is not what we do.  We pass on what is reported.  What you did wrong in my opinion was to encourage another editor to revert (or not) based on whether that other editor thought an RS was "valid".  But we are not judge and jury of RS content.  Instead we cover what the RSs say about the subject (even if we think they are full of crap).  This principle is described in the popular essay Verifiability, not truth.  The better you master that the better editor you will be; and that would be a good thing since you clearly have some time and passion to give the project.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now see, you're one of the good guys. Thanks for the constructive crit. Kennvido (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW being new another thing you may not have heard... the sanctions process is by definition not intended as punishment. It is intended as constructive criticism to reform bad behaviors and produce better editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Like slapping child who puts their finger on a candle flame. But, your way of explanation is better. I never hit my kids, I talked to them and they turned out as great human beings. Kennvido (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * more like creating the time and space for them to just feel how much their own choice caused them pain and time and space to figure out for themselves how they created the problem and how to make choices that inherently produce different outcomes next time. Anyone who hits their kid for any reason is making their own choice; that parental decision to strike is not an inherent product of the kids initial choice.   Our sanctions process essentially notes that bad behavoir inherently breaks the trust requied for a collaborative process; once an editor breaks that trust they have through that action declared themselves for awhile to be unable to collaborate within the policies etc.  The sanctions process only determines when tha thas happened; it does not impose it.  At least that is the theory.  Which makes striking a parental choice of punishment that has nothing at all to do with the kids choice to touch the flame.  Both the breaking of trust and its inherent declaration of inability to collaborate and the pain of the burned finger are natural consequence which are far better at teaching people lasting lessons than corporal punishment in my opinion.   I mean... social ad fiscal conservatives all agree that we have a crisis of personal responsibility in the country.  Which teaching method holds the greater promise to address this?  If you have doubts there is statistical evidence from the world of juvenile delinquent rehab programs but I have left that world and do not have cites handy NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For lack of a better term, what's the best way to report the VANDAL AHOLES here? I have seen sooooo many and corrected their mischief. Kennvido (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no way to do that. See WP:CIVIL.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Too bad, I'll just correct like I have... thanks for all the tips. God Bless my friend. Kennvido (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Anosognosics Dilemma NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The way I report vandals after they have been given a final warning is Administrator intervention against vandalism. I think that is what you were asking. Usually they will receive a block unless they are reported with no vandalism after a warning. United States Man (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reports of what Kennvido calls "VANDAL AHOLES" anywhere will likely result in a WP:BOOMERANG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that does seem likely. He even called me an AHOLE on that popsci article. United States Man (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he said that in an email and was betrayed by the author of the article. Automatic  Strikeout  23:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely correct Kennvido (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting it is OK to to be UNCIVIL when talking about people behind their back; but project a false image of CIVIL when out in the light of day? See gaming the system.  Basically you either respect others and work within the Dispute resolution process or you dont. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that what he said was okay. I'm only pointing out that we wouldn't know about it if the author of that article had any ethics. Automatic  Strikeout  16:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You're taking this stuff way too personal. There's so much more to life and other things to be concerned about than this minutia... It's over, so drop it already, I have. Hug your kids, pet the dog, take a walk, get a haircut... Kennvido (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of seeming like I need the last word before I WP:DROPTHESTICK as you ask I would just like to pass on another one of those tips for which you were thanking me a bit ago. A core element of WIKI Etiquette is known as  WP:Assume good faith; maybe I took nothing personal and was trying to mentor a newbie who was improperly harrassed off wiki in the hope their future here will be brighter and they will become a great wikipedian?  You can lead a horse to water..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You just can't stop picking at the scab. I appreciated your help and I told you that. You need another, 'atta boy' for helping someone with strings attached? Thank you for helping me NewsAndEventsGuy you da man. Now, please leave the scab alone. Kennvido (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an opinion, NewsAndEventGuy created a section in Kenvido talkpage just to attack him. If he comes with unnecessary and intimidative warning and keep asking and answering as a cynical he de facto attacked him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.88.201 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone needs a hobby :) Kennvido (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, just as yours is letting your political beliefs impact the way you edit Wikipedia pages. You might want to seriously reconsider whether subjective beliefs fueled by talk radio rather than science are a good guide for editing pages. 12.96.236.122 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are one of those trolls, who sits behind their keyboard in the basement probably in your underwear and throws out comments without identifying themselves in their signature. Your opinion means nothing to me. You are just a number like a convict and nothing else. At least those who DO I.D. themselves, even if they strongly disagree with me, I respect, because they are not hiding who they are when they comment. I honestly hope you are not one member who already commented and got another account here JUST to spew hate. If you are... you know you are and that's good enough for me. Kennvido (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Help - looking for a cite about different ways to measure cost
Hi; Amidst our headbutting over GW and H Sandy you posted an important link that I have lost but would like to revisit. It was the one about looking at the cost of storms from different perspectives; especially trying to tease out the influence of (adjective omitted) people building million dollar homes on sandy ocean facing beaches. See the 1st paragraph of the current version. We only say that it was second most costly. No where do we discuss the influence of development on overall losses and I agree with you that we should. Do you still have that ref handy? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You may go to: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/10/cost-hurricane-sandy-perspective/58510/# Too bad there's no way just to pull up what I put earlier. Good Luck Kennvido (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that one... was looking for the side by side one (one below the other) showing actual dollars vs normalized; if you see it again please let me know NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thunks this is it... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/05/is-sandy-the-second-most-destructive-u-s-hurricane-ever-or-not-even-top-10/ Kennvido (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks that was it. I will think about it more later today or tomorrow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey bridge collapse derails freight train; chemical leaks
Isn't this right up your alley: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-train-derailmentbre8at0pf-20121130,0,1959266.story Regards, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't do bridges without names, but thanks ;-) Kennvido (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Cmdr. Price
Please stop dropping out of place entries on the ST 4 CO into the SEAL article and the "List of notable SEALs" article. The details aren't out yet but as of now the Commander is one of dozens of active duty SEALs who have died in the past decade and on of thousands of active duty military members who've committed suicide. I understand if you find it to be personally compelling but the entry is jarringly out of place on the parent page. If you're not sure where I (or GB Fan) are coming from feel free to hit me up on the talk page for either article, my talk page or simply respond here. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You say jarringly out of place. Well, these men need to be acknowledged no matter how they die. Please start an article to do this and I won't need to put in areas YOU don't like. Details ARE out. He shot himself in the head, but I did not think that needed to be put in the article. Kennvido (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

William Rees-Mogg
Hi, thanks for citing sources on this article. However, I undid a little fault that you made. I am talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Rees-Mogg&diff=530287936&oldid=530287774 where you wrote "William Rees-Mogg, Baron Rees-Mogg, Lord Rees-Mogg". This was a fault, as the title is "Baron Rees-Mogg", while "Lord Rees-Mogg" is just a way of referring to him, not a different title. I look forward to your response, thanks!--The Theosophist (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, we are all here to help one another. Kennvido (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

New med for TB
Added some info on it to the research section. Removed it from where it was as not a vaccine. Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hilda Solis
Hi. I appreciate your recent edits on Hilda Solis, for contributing information about her recent resignation. But I'm afraid I had to remove the text you put on her resignation from the "biography" section of her article, because I already added that she was resigning. I also noticed that you put that she was resigning in the "U.S. Labor Secretary" section of Solis's article, and do thank you for your contribution there. c:
 * No problem, we all work together. I have done correcting on many articles and like you and all in good faith. Keep up the good work! Kennvido (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama and global warming
Don't really think Obama's inaugural comments need to be copied to every global warming related page. Perhaps the politics of... and US policy on .. pages should be enough. Vsmith (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Problem is most here will take it down any and everywhere because it goes against the grain. It has already happened. Kennvido (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)