User talk:Kendrick7

Werdnabot is dead. Long Live manual labor!

0

1

2

3

4

5

DYK

On 13 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ryan Holle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazism

Yeah sorry about that, it was a really dumb title to choose when I want to be taken seriously! 91.108.241.252 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, Kendrik! I forgot the closing code, and went back and fixed it on every card...but yours :-(. I am a bit Klutzy with code. Jeffpw (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Defender 911

I'm not sure what you're advocating. Defender is considered banned because no administrator is willing to unblock him. Sean William @ 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've reverted to include the {{banneduser}} template, because that's what is currently applicable. Unless you want to run a community discussion for User:Amorrow, as well? Daniel 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Undeletion request

Hi. Thanks for notifying me. To be honest since I don't really remember the specifics here, I'll wait a bit for the AN thread to continue. But were the consensus to unblock, don't hesitate to ask me or anyone for the undeletion, of course. Note that there is no real banning "process", a user is considered banned when no admin in his right mind will unblock (I agree "indef blocked" might have been a better deletion summary though). -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Arrangement Guy

Any reason you welcomed this user two weeks after he was indef blocked as a sockpuppet? It's rather a waste of time, isn't it? Fram (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris Dodd..

No problem. However, you should check out Ron Paul's article. Its well written and is a good model. Don't be afraid to make changes.

Jeremy221 (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Edits

I must insist that you discuss your edits and seek an a consensus before instituting them. If the article gets blocked because people are making contentious edits against consensus, i am going to be more than a little pissed. Please discuss your edits and await feedback prior to making them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you have comments or concerns, esp those which your edit-warring created the need for a 3RR warning, you might find it more useful to use the Discussion page to convince others that they are needed. Otherwise, the perception of your edits as contentious will only cause problems for yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing, btw. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Hi, Kendrick. Since I see that you have previously been blocked several times for violating the three revert rule, I suppose you must be aware of what the rule says. By my count, you have now reverted Santa Claus three times in less than three hours. One more and I will block you for 3RR vio. Please note that I don't have any opinion on the dispute as such. However, should you revert again, I will give you extra block time for unrepentant 3RR recidivism, as is normal practice. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

re: your edit summary

Own the lead? Surely you must be kidding. My dear, they own the whole fucking article. Jeffpw (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just be gald?

Please substantiate on AN/I. Ceoil (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was a witty little rhyme. I laughed the 2nd time I read it, so look forget it. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But

But I was, and you didn't. Reconcile that. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I changed it down to expire at the start of the New Year, but I am keeping protected. I originally got a request for it at WP:RPP.   jj137 ^♠ 21:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Durban Strategy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Durban Strategy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durban Strategy (2nd nomination). Thank you. —Ashley Y 03:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PRIVATE

Please revert yourself and put things back the way they were when the page was protected. This is not the time to try out your own ideas without consensus. Your changes will be reported to the protecting administrator. Risker (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't gotten as far as notifying Alison, and thank you for reverting. The edit war was directly related to the concept of having both versions on the project page at the same time, so any splitting off is in contravention of the purpose for protection. Perhaps that wasn't entirely clear in the history or talk page information. Risker (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's everyone leave things alone now that it's been nominated for MfD. I had been hoping that the community could recognize that there is indeed a middle ground here, but (despite the potential for innocent bystanders to get troutwhacked) I'd rather see no policy than a restrictive one. I was a bit surprised to see WP:Confidential evidence included in the MfD though, and will probably inquire about that. Risker (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

You might want to tread with care on the pages for the PIR websites. Brandt's various 'watch' sites are just riffs off his various 'watch' [1] articles for various topics in PIR's 'namebase' project, with the intention of distributing them more widely and creating controversy, though with more of a personal Brandt-attack flavour. The most relevant parts were pruned and merged into the PIR article.

Moreover, Brandt has been banned from Wikipedia for a streak of attacks on Wikipedia, in which he behaved in a highly dishonest manner. Actions which act to promote his personal conspiracy theory websites are likely to be viewed with an certain degree of suspicion, greater than that which would usually arise from resurrecting a long dead article. John Nevard (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page conclusion was that the sources deleted were bad. Brandt will accuse Wikipedia of anything his mind can muster anyway, though we're just a secondary target compared to Google to him. John Nevard (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

GDS

Good edit, do you think we should be using quotation marks also? Thoughts? Regards, Mercury 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, William Stewart Simkins, was selected for DYK!

On December 31, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Stewart Simkins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please don't start slipping back into your old habits. I'm not sure what's up here[2] but it's the kind of diff that could land you back in hot water. Blanking material, no edit summary? Not good. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any old habits to leave behind. And I've been in extended contact/discussion with an admin who took his own interest in this article and asked me what I wanted him to do about the problems I described. I've asked him to protect it after I've removed the BLP-breaching and consensus-trashing that's gone on at this article. It appears to be 7 to 1 against this editor and his massive abuse of every WP:POLICY, including BLP and notability.

I know I'm supposed to be muzzled for daring to put good material in articles, but I've really edited this article in full and careful appreciation of what's involved and the ax you have hanging over my head. One day, you may have some real reason to block my editing for lack of collegiality or something - but in the meantime, with the very serious problems going on at articles like this, there is far more important work to do. PR^talk 09:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)