User talk:Kennvido/Archive 2

Copyright violation

Hi Kennvido. I notice that you have inserted the same text in several articles, e.g. [1] or [2]. While it may be appropriate in a few of the articles, it appear as if you lifted the text verbatim from this article. As far as I can tell, this violates WP:COPYVIO. Try to phrase things in you own word. I also have serious doubts that Cybercast News Service passes WP:RS. Please find consensus for this kind of edits first. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I shall just do a rewrite and I have referenced much less of a source in articles that were accepted and not deleted...I have put in the actual transcript from the WH and think that is reliable... thanks. Kennvido (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

POV spam

Please stop with the POV spamming [3] etc William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not consider a quote from the white house POV. POV would be MY own take.Kennvido (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Who selected the quotation? — goethean 23:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I did of course... a quotation from the from the spokesperson that represents the president's administration. THEIR POV again, not mine. When you find Carney retracts it, put it in. I will NOT say it is your POV, because it is not. Kennvido (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See the replies to your question at User talk:William M. Connolley#White Wouse stance on GW – your misrepresentation of what Carney said is your POV, and such quote mining is unacceptable. "No specific storm or weather event can be tied to climate change, but the fact is we have seen more severe storms. We have seen more severe weather events, droughts, and fires"[4] is a reasonable statement. Equally obviously, we don't use the White Wouse as a source for scientific facts. . . dave souza, talk 09:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

ANYONE could have pulled more out of the article and added it. But, the easy way was taken. Delete it ALL and ban me for a while. I am done with this area and will not further respond.Kennvido (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Politics of Global Warming

Kennvido - thank you for your edits to Wikipedia. A couple of editors including me have reverted your additions to the politics of global warming. per WP:BRD, please come to the talk to discuss. This is a very broad article and a comment from even a head of state is out of place in this article. Come to the talk to discuss. As a caution there is something called the 3R rule, which can expose us to blocks from editing wikipedia. Please don't revert the edit until we resolve the issue using the policy dispute resolution mechanism in the talk. Thank you for your contributions. I will watch this page and watch for your entry int the article's talk page, feel free to delete this message.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am totally out numbered on Wikipedia with those that will do anything to pooh pooh and delete ANYTHING that even suggests that GW is NOT a FACT regarding anything that occurs on earth... even weather and EVEN if it comes from the President of the United States or his spokesperson saying GW CANNOT be attributed to any individual weather happening. You can see how out numbered I am by the posts on my user page regarding my little sentence and legit references. Heaven help any contributor here who dares to say man GW is not a FACT. I know from experience on Wiki this would not bode well on this site.Kennvido (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No you're not outnumbered, it's just that Wikipedians are a very special lot. There is a right place for things and random fact are generally rejected out of most articles. Yes many have an agenda but most just want to write good articles based on fact. Don't be disillusioned. Help us make it better. -Justanonymous (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You just don't say a special lot of what. Kennvido (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"What" is well covered at WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It does not include offtopic sources, or your quote mining from "No specific storm or weather event can be tied to climate change, but the fact is we have seen more severe storms. We have seen more severe weather events, droughts, and fires"[5] to promote your own POV. . . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not my POV, I showed the White House POV and ALL is deleted. I proved the point I wanted to prove...that's all I wanted to do. I am done with this area and will not further respond. Kennvido (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the problem that this isn't a good source for article where you've been trying to insert it, you've misrepresented the White House POV. On a technical point, you added a falsehood when giving the quote as "No specific storm or weather event can be tied to climate change." Putting the full stop inside the quote marks makes it look like that's the end of the quoted sentence, which is wrong. In the standard Wikipedia format it would be more correct to write"No specific storm or weather event can be tied to climate change". However, that would still be quote mining, suggesting that you really do have a considerable problem with trying to insert your POV where your source doesn't justify it. . dave souza, talk 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring at Hurricane Sandy.[6][7][8]

Because this is not the first time you have been blocked for 3RR (and on the same article, no less) the duration of the block is 72 hours. The 3RR policy does not grant you three reverts in a 24 hour period; if you continue to push the limits of the edit warring policy, future blocks will be significantly longer. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors here can take off whatever they want as many times as they want and they get rewarded and high five each other. I expected no less from the editors on Wikipedia who enjoy shutting down people that don't follow the sheep that believe global warming is a proven fact. Kennvido (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not what this is about. As a meteorologist, even I am skeptical of many of the claims about global warming's contributions to hurricanes (not that I think there is no impact), but you can't edit war on an article. You need to discuss things on the talk page. Nobody is getting rewarded here; you just need to adhere to the same policies and guidelines that everyone else has to adhere to. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I may edit war on any article I please and accept my 'smack on the knuckles'. Editors want to block me, that's fine...I can live with that. Any skeptic regarding the existence of manmade GW on Wikipedia is considered wrong and that is just the way it is. This is a liberal site and I accept that as well. Once my time in solitary is over, I will continue to contribute. Kennvido (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring is not contributing. You've done a lot of good work on the site, especially with Hurricane Sandy, but if you keep getting blocked for edit warring, eventually the block is going to end up being indefinite, which would be a shame. Why don't you at least try discussing these issues on the talk pages instead of just engaging in reverting? Inks.LWC (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussing GW here would be futile. I would be outvoted in every instance unless I posted something following the rest of the sheep that firmly believe that manmade GW is an indisputable fact. I believe in climate change, because the earth has been doing it on its own for millions of years. Should the editors choose to block me in the future for something I do, that's up to them and their loss in the long run. Kennvido (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that if you refuse to even try? Inks.LWC (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussing GW here would be futile. - I don't agree with you, but lets suppose you do honestly believe that, and that its even actually true. In which case what you're doing still doesn't make sense: your text isn't making it into the articles. And it won't, certainly not if you're not prepared to argue in its favour William M. Connolley (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You want to blame it on some liberal conspiracy, that's fine (although I don't know what part of my edit history or userpage would give you the impression that I'm a liberal anything). But I'll tell you right now: If you add that quote back even one time, to any article, I will block you for a month. Persist after that, and we'll go longer. You are not going to get what you want by edit warring. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ken, if I may give an example of why this particular edit got you into trouble, it's because you tried splattering it all over wikipedia into places without regard for whether it was appropriate or not. Take a look at your version of the Politics of global warming page. In the middle of a section discussing treaties and international conferences, you inserted a random statement about hurricanes. Regardless of the existence or nonexistence POV issues, it's just bad writing to try to shoehorn a completely unrelated topic into an existing and coherent narrative. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My point for putting it in Wikipedia in the first place was to show exactly what I wanted to show and you did it in spades. If anyone's facts with references don't fit in with the sheep, it is erased and you are banned for a while. The FACT that it came from the office of the President of the United States did not matter. All that mattered was it was against the agenda here. Will I ever put something in regarding GW again? NEVER! There is no need to. Sailsbystars - The reason I put it in many places is to see how long it would take for everything to disappear... that wasn't very long. Just look and see where it still exists. Hmmmm, magically it's gone from everywhere... yes, this site is a fair and just one AND accepts ALL references facts. I have sent this experiment and talk page to MANY to show the fairness of a lot of the editors on Wikipedia. I thank all of you for proving my point that there definitely is an agenda here. I will stick to dead people and the less important articles, LOL. Kennvido (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You want to read WP:POINT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I got 72 hours and as I said I WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN...no need to. You have my permission to block me forever should it happen again. Kennvido (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully. Here's an analogy that might help you - if you walk into a bar that has many motorcycles parked outside and then proceed to punch clients at random in the bar and are subsequently thrown out the window of the establishment - that does not entitle you to claim that all motorcycle riders are violent outlaws. You instigated this. Now you admit that you wanted to run an experiment and knew this would be the result. Yes, you got thrown out of the bar and then the cop came, heard your story and blocked you for 72 hours - not because he's a member of a cabal but because you assaulted and battered innocents. You're lucky, premeditated breaking of WP:POINT can carry a ban sentence - you admitted to a higher offense. The fact a President makes a statement doesn't entitle you to insert it randomly into every article in Wikipedia without regard to what the article is about. And yes, those guys guarding the GW pages are some tough hombres, especially the scientific pages on GW , you better come armed to the teeth with a bunch of journals like Nature or better and make your edits very carefully in just the right place and discuss and get consensus beforehand. They're not unreasonable but they knwo a lot and they know the published literature very well too. As to me, I happened to be in the bar and I got punched by you and I drive a car! No, you were very out of line and given that you were out here WRT to WP:POINT, you're lucky you got off so easy. If I were you, I'd lay low for the next 72 hours and reassess.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem somewhat reasonable to understand there IS a definite agenda here. Cross it and those 'hombres' and your post(s), yet true and referenced, are toast. Lay low? I cannot publish anywhere! I think that my lying low was thrust upon me and that's fine. This is the last response I will post here. So, boys and girls... post what you must to feel good about yourselves and mother earth and tell AL hello when you see him! Kennvido (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But Ken, there is ALWAYS a cabal ALWAYS an agenda (they're called Wikiprojects) - people don't edit unless they have an impetus for something. The fact the Wikiproject climate change guys are tough doesn't make them criminals - they're just tough unionized labor. I've edited a small number of GW scientific pages but I'm generally very careful - I have two or three very solid references and make sure I have notability and everything else and I'll bring that to fill in a pothole that hadn't been filled - we could argue that the existing cabal purposefully didn't fill the pothole because it doesn't advance their narrative but you could never ever get proof....punching them won't fix it, it just gets you into trouble - just fill the pothole with good similar quality asphalt and nobody will complain, fill it with dirt and you will get kicked out as a subquality contractor or better yet find a road that hasn't been paved and pave it and pave it well and nobody will give you a hard time either. Good luck out there. I do suggest against breaking WP:POINT. The cops around here don't mess around. If you want to label me a member of some green party - that's fine -Justanonymous (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ken, you could have put in a quote from the White House saying, "global warming leads to stronger hurricanes", and it still would have been removed because it didn't belong where you put it. It was removed quickly because it didn't make sense where you had it in the article, and it violated WP:POINT, and a lot of people watch those pages. It wasn't some liberal agenda doing this, and to believe it was is to believe an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

I wanted to let you know that I removed your content about Sandy Hook students/faculty/parents being guests of the Knicks at a game. I think it would be probably be more appropriate at Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting alongside news about other sports figures' reactions. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Too bad. I think that any nice thing done for these people involved in this tragedy should be noted, especially a huge kindness like this by a large NBA team. Too bad you don't feel the same way and decide to remove it because of a little technicality as you see it and remove it before even discussing it with me... that's a shame. Kennvido (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You know nothing about me, so saying that what I did was 'a shame' and 'too bad'?... I just think that this Knicks news would be more appropriate in the 'Reaction' article, along with other sports teams, like the New York Giants, the New England Patriots, the entire National Football League...oh, and the news about Sandy Hook Choir singing at the Super Bowl. Along with the reactions of the Prime Ministers of Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Norway, SIngapore, the President of France, the President of Russia, President Barack Obama and Queen Elizabeth... It does not seem appropriate to me to have a single action by a sports team as it was originally placed in the main article. But other editors might agree with you that this Knicks content should be in the reactions section of the Sandy Hook article so restore it there if you think that is best. Shearonink (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess you care. My mistake, I didn't even see the reaction page, so put it there with the Giants and other sports related.... again sorry. Have a sparkling day. Kennvido (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I REALLLLLY feel bad about what happened Shearonink, so sorry again...Kennvido (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to February 2013 nor'easter, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just that sometimes the box is not visible and though I click on the area I think, I could double click and leave it blank. This doesn't happen a great deal and sometimes it checks. Kennvido (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean? And you did it twice in a row. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The boxes that you check under the Edit Summary. Sometimes they do not appear. Kennvido (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If they don't appear, then how did you check it? I've never had that problem. Perhaps you should try using a different browser. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's happened on rare occasions like tonight. Now, both boxes are clearly visible. It's not my browsers. Again, when it happened, I would guestimate where the box is and click once. I isn't rocket science... it's just a once and a while glitch. :) Kennvido (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN for February 2013 nor'easter

--Spencer^T♦C 04:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain how that works and why I was giving this? Kennvido (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Template:In the news, which is a part of the Main Page, was updated to include a mention of February 2013 nor'easter. In the nomination at WP:ITN/C, your name was listed in the nomination as someone who had done substantial expansion or other work on the article, and the above message is a message of thanks and recognition for your work! Best, Spencer^T♦C 05:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much Spencer. Kennvido (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Global warming - edit warring - 3RR - Arbcomm - Battleground attitude

I'd like to comment on something you (Kennvido) said in a recent thread on your talk page, "I may edit war on any article I please and accept my 'smack on the knuckles'." In my view, this is evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and reflects a flawed understanding of the purpose of sanctions here at Wikipedia. Moreover, after a person has been warned about the special Arbcomm ruling on climate change, the looser general rule WP:3RR no longer applies for that subject area. Instead, discretionary sanctions can be imposed well before one breaks 3RR for, among other things, battleground attitude. You were warned about the Arbcomm decision a few months ago, and FYI I have added your warning to the Arbcomm discretionary sanctions notification list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ken, like I said a few weeks ago - you're a good editor that does a lot of work on meteorology articles; it would be a shame to lose you because you keep trying to win a battle you can't win. If you want to discuss GW's place in articles, but it would be a shame if you end up getting restricted from meteorology/global warming articles because you have a desire to edit war. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, you bring this up now weeks later? You bored today? Please leave me alone and report me if it makes you feel better when and IF I 'edit war'... I have done NOTHING for you to bring this up up weeks later. Shame on you. And who is discussing gw Inks.LWC? I'm not. Let sleeping dogs lie already. Kennvido (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I'm interested in the purpose of sanctions (prevention) and this thread is early with respect to the next severe weather article in which global warming makes an appearance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess you were selective in you reading the talk page as to what my actions shall be if GW rears it's head again in an article I contribute to. Kennvido (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, a question has arisen whether I acted properly in adding your name to the ARBCC notice list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have redacted my posting of your name from the ARBCC notice list, per recent developments in this proceeding. I apologize that my good faith understanding of the text was not what the drafters intended, and for any upset the resulting clash may have caused you. Hopefully we can get the text revised to to prevent such misunderstandings in the future. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 North Korean nuclear test

I put the reaction section back in paragraph form. Without the paragraph form it fails the ITN requirements and will have to be marked unready. μηδείς (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I just wish people will leave it alone as it is now and stop thinking they invented the wheel. Good job! Kennvido (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not eligible for ITN with your edits. Lists are deprecated. And you are already in violation of WP:3RR it seems. I am going to put this back in prose form. If you want to face an AN3 report you will get one. μηδείς (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What is your problem? I give kudos and you stick a finger in my eye? Learn how to take a compliment. Yes, previous violation... I'm a bad man! And I notice you attacked other editors and were warned about that... so, I take your response and further attacks with a grain of salt. Don't be a hater. Kennvido (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN Credit

--Jayron32 14:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Banana Joe

Always wanted to go to one. I'm based in the UK so we have Crufts, which I'm an avid viewer of. I did the two featured lists of the Best in Show winners of Westminster and Crufts so I like to keep them updated when theres a new winner. Miyagawa (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, great job! Kennvido (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Height

Come on. The russians said "About 10,000m" and some guy in the news agency added "32,800 feet" for Americans who couldn't convert. Please don't pretend that 32,800 was the original figure or that any of these numbers are accurate to more than 1 significant figure. - SimonLyall (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with it as long as it says 'about' like you put it. Kennvido (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

List of meteor air bursts

Why are you removing this link? --PlanetEditor (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A link for the word meteor here in not needed. It is linked earlier. Kennvido (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Banana Joe V Tani Kazari

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez

Please stop removing referenced material--you have already reverted new additions three times, and are preventing the article from being listed on ITN. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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.

I am trying to get rid of opinion and just state that this man died. No extras. Arent' there others warring? I will leave alone and let all the others fight on what is relevant. Kennvido (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Please stop adding overarching parent categories (such as to Long Island Blackbirds men's basketball) as well as completely inapplicable categories (such as adding Most Valuable Player awards, Orange Bowl, and CBS Sports to Steve Davis (quarterback).) None of those categories remotely apply. You're getting a bit category-crazy using HotCat. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If I didn't think it 'remotely' applied, I wouldn't have applied it. He DID work for CBS, he WAS MVP and did WAS in the Orange Bowl. Let's agree to disagree. :) Kennvido (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You'd be the only one agreeing with those categories, then. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess. Kennvido (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your categorizing of Bob Turley was incorrect. A person gets categorized by county or town, not by state. People from Fulton County, Georgia not People from Georgia applies. Turley was already categorized People from Madison County, Illinois, a subcategory of People from Illinois. A person doesn't get categorized in both a category and its subcategory, so People from Illinois was removed....William 20:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the info and fixing it. Will remember in the future. What if there is no county or town? Do I start one? Kennvido (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If there isn't a county category, go ahead and create one. City or town categories are trickier.

1- If the town has at least four people from it, a category can be created. The consensus is four or more and a category will survive a merge or deletion discussion. I myself go by the rule of 8 or more. That's me.

If the town or city is in two or more counties, consensus says it can get its own category whether it has 1 or 101 entries. A county category can be created even if it only has one notable person from it.

2- How do you know if a person is from a town? Birthplace tells you, if the article says they grew up somewhere other than their birthplace, that counts too. Death is trickier. People die in hospitals and other places other than the place they're actually from. I don't categorize by place of death unless it says something like 'Bill Jones died at his home in blah, Kansas'.

3- A person gets put in the town subcategory of a town category but not in both the town subcategory and county subcategory. A person can however be from multiple subcategories of the same category. Say John Smith was born in Yonkers, New York, grew up in Mamaroneck, New York but died at his home in Rye, New York. Yonkers, Mamaroneck, and Rye all have its own category and that person can be categorized in all three. All three communities are in Westchester County, New York. John Smith would be categorized by those 'People from' communities but not People from Westchester County, New York.

Turley was born in Troy, Illinois. That's Madison County, Illinois. Troy is a small town with only two notable people, one of whom is Turley. He grew up in East St. Louis, Illinois. East St. Louis has its own category. Turley lived in Alpharetta, Georgia. That's Fulton County, Georgia. Alpharetta doesn't have a category, but its a city of over 50,000 people. There are probably enough people from that city for a category, but it means extra work(finding the other people). What to do is judgment call. A quick check by me finds 4 notable people at least from Alpharetta. So a category would be fine.

I hope that explains everything. Categorizing people by town is something I do alot of. Sportspeople from Anchorage, Alaska, Sportspeople from Madison, Wisconsin, Sportspeople from Hartford, Connecticut, Sportspeople from Syracuse, New York, were a few categories I've created and then filled up.

Cool and thanks again... keep an eye on me so I learn. Kennvido (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Albacore (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up... I addressed it. Some folks just like to start crap with me or anyone and play hall monitor and tell the teacher rather than address the person they would like to correct. You can see I AM and WAS appreciative to the member that helped me with the Cats. I thank you so much again... I do WAY TOO much on here updating in good faith to be treated like that. :) Kennvido (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Your AN/I response committed to addressing the close paraphrasing. Were you going to start that any time soon? That would go a long way toward diffusing the problem. Tiderolls 00:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There are so many complete copy and pastes the I see on Wiki and I don't say a word. That to me is for the higher ups to address. Or IF I have some time I will do a rewrite to be helpful. Some have already been fixed. You have specifics? Give them to me and I will happily address ASAP. I can't stand the petty stuff Tide rolls or the hall monitors telling the teachers rather than addressing one on one. A good example is above here by someone who corrected me and I thanked them. :) Kennvido (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I can sympathize with petty concerns deflecting one from one's agenda, but I'm sure you can understand the importance of addressing potential copyright violations. The specifics you request are laid out in the diffs cited in the AN/I report. I personally didn't see copy and paste problems, but there was definitely close paraphrasing. If you could rewrite the additions so as to avoid the close paraphrasing I'm sure that we could all move on to bigger and better things. If rewrite is out of the question, then self-revert would do nicely. Tiderolls 00:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Matters addressed Kennvido (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this so promptly, Kennvido. Regards Tiderolls 00:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, it's what we do. Kennvido (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Hello, I have created a DYK for Kevin Ware at Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Ware. You are listed as an author. If you have a better hook, nominate it there. Albacore (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have in years here NEVER done that. I would need assistance. It you can help me, I would be grateful, but I'll understand if you cannot. Or send me to a 'how to' place here. :) Kennvido (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

When editing Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Ware, you can list your hook where it says ":* [<]!--Make first comment here-->". See Wikipedia:Did you know#The_hook for the rules for nominating a hook, (section "Content" is probably the most pertinent here). Regards. Albacore (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Troopathon

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

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

A tag has been placed on Troopathon 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 an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), 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. Kumioko (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Troopathon

I dont understand why the adminstrator, User:Malik_Shabazz, deleted the Troopathon article either. I'm not really into the subject myself, but I noticed your comment on Malik's page and on checking out the restored article in your userspace, wondered if there is a way to get a second opinion on these things? Browsing his talk page, he appears rather harsh in his "speedy deletion" judgments. The user seems to be deleting a number of articles either because he has not heard of the topic/person before, or does not understand the weight of their notability, or perhaps even because he simply does not agree with the nature of the content (conspiracy/supernatural phenomena etc).

A number of the sources you provided on Malik's talkpage are used as WP:RS on WP - such as Breitbart and Canada Free Press, even the event website itself is a reliable source in this situation. Also given the list of previous participants, that alone is worth a notability mention in itself. Perhaps you could also make mention of the event in the articles of some of those notable partcipants (and link the word Troopathon), as multiple mentions of "Troopathon" throughout WP may help to create a "need to define" situation. Troopathon is already mentioned on three wikipedia articles, so you could turn these mentions into page links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Troopathon

The Troopathon article is only a stub ... but I'm not sure how many sources the adminstrator is expecting to see in order to validate a rather straight forward subject, on an article of such length?? :-\ Anyway, here are a couple more WP:RS to help you get it reinstated. You could add these to both the participants and Troopathon articles.

• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1943022/
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1943023/

The next source is considered a "Hyperpartisan Source", however, in context of this subject, its use should be fine, in the same way Breitbart is an acceptable source on many articles within its genre.

• http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/rush-limbaugh-troopathon-move/2010/06/30/id/363511

It also looks like another user is working on a Troopathon article, whom you may be able to enlist as backup to support your cause to have the article reinstated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tbudowich/Troopathon

Hope this will be of some help toward getting your article reinstated. Good luck. PoizonMyst (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you object to a deletion, whether it be speedy or other otherwise, the proper venue to start a discussion is deletion review. No comment on the merits of this case, just saw the query on my watchlist this morning and thought I'd give a pointer... Sailsbystars (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to thank you so much for you kind words and interest. I, after previous experience on Wiki, don't fight these 'editors' or 'administrators' who usually have a personal agenda anymore. By looking at his past edits, deletes and especially his contributed articles, I need a person like yourself who knows the rules are regs much better than I to help with my quest for reinstatement of the Troopathon article. You can AND HAVE stated many points already that make Troopathon a valid contribution with more than enough valid sources. As you can see, I do a lot and mean a lot of edits here. Funny how I never get any kudos or 'stars' for my many contributions, but I accept that knowing what I am dealing with with the majority of 'editors' and 'administrators' who wield must more 'power' and show it. Should User:Malik_Shabazz read this, the article will never get reinstated. If you want to or can, I would appreciate you assistance. If not, no hard feelings my friend. Just seeing that there are people like you as members here who do care makes me more confident. Again, thank you and God Bless. Kennvido (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you as well Sailsbystars for your comment and help.

Don't think User:Tbudowich is here anymore... no talkpage, but again thank you PoizonMyst Kennvido (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kevin Ware

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Troopathon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LionMans Account (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. Kennvido (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

April Fool's Day

Hello. It doesn't make any sense to use a copy of a Wikipedia article as a source for itself! One or more of the countries might have been added by mistake - we need a independent and reliable source confirming that these countries celebrate April Fool's Day. Pointing to a website that at some point made a copy of the Wikipedia article doesn't prove anything.

Sadly this sort of thing can happen through lazy journalism, but given that the sources you quote explicitly say that they are exact copies of the Wikipedia article, we can nip it in the bud and reject them before anybody mistakes them for authentic sources. --McGeddon (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(Not sure why you've interpreted me as being "new here" - maybe because my talk page has been archived up to April? I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So, when I find time and feel like doing it, I'll find those sources and use them and you can leave the article alone. Or you can do what I have done for many articles lacking ind. and reliable sources... find some to help make the article better. As we are suppose to help here. That's always a nice gesture and helpful to others. Kennvido (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Scripps

I have nominated Scripps to appear on the "In the News" section of the mainpage and listed you as a contributor. Feel free to comment there if you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you my friend... what would you like me to do? I have never gotten involved with doing that. Kennvido (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

ITN is mostly "my opinion is this item is worth posting because X" or "my opinion is it is not because Y". So, if you think your opinion is worth hearing go ahead and post. Of course if you don't care one way or the other about it hitting the mainpage, then there is no reason to comment. If its posted, you'll get a credit whether or not you comment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Kennvido (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Atlantic hurricane season

Please do not include any areas of disturbed weather to this article. This page is solely regarding systems classified as tropical (or subtropical) cyclones by the National Hurricane Center. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you create an area to put this kinds stuff? Living on the coast, it would be nice for those in these areas to see info. Thanks. Kennvido (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to include every detail. We've based the content on the article on the final products of the National Hurricane Center (the Hurricane Database). Non-developing systems are only included if they've been disputed to have been a tropical cyclone by a reputable source (such as the 2006 Central Pacific cyclone). It's not our place to have constantly up-to-date information on every disturbance that threatens to become a tropical cyclone. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Too bad. Kennvido (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for 86th Scripps National Spelling Bee

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Cory Booker

Howdy- A discussion has begun on Cory Booker's talk page concerning the 2014 Senate Election information. Due to your recent edits, I thought you may be interested in contributing to the discussion. Thanks. Have a good one. PrairieKid (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Guyard-Guillot

I copied your comment from the article talk page to the AfD page. Feel free to comment further there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Howard

Note that the USA Today report has been disputed: [9] Zagalejo^^^ 23:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a claim reported by a major newspaper. This news is that important to me, won't argue with you. Read it:

"After 20 months of twists and turns in the Dwight Howard saga, a person with knowledge of his decision told USA TODAY Sports he will join the Houston Rockets. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because his decision had not yet been announced."

Kennvido (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Fatalities

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Fatalities and the fact that KTVU is only source we can find reporting dead and injured. FAA and other reliable sources have not confirmed as yet, and cable TV news is notoriously unreliable. Steven Walling • talk 21:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a direct link to reports and they are correct. Kennvido (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What reports? How do you know? Steven Walling • talk 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I know two reporters on the scene and an being updated. But you wait for your 'official result'... fine with me. Kennvido (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You know our sourcing requirements better than to say that we can report deaths based on some guys you personally know. Steven Walling • talk Steven Walling • talk 21:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem I changed all numbers to unconfirmed because at the PR they don't know. Kennvido (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

How about showing a little consideration for those that may have had relatives on board? Adding 'unofficial' figures is clearly not helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But, it's true it's unofficial. Kennvido (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Passenger and crew numbers

I posed a question on the OZ214 talk page essentially asking why there is an insistence on waiting for FAA data. The numbers are verifiable to reliable sources and there is no requirement to wait until the FAA says the same. (On what basis is the FAA more reliable about this than the airline anyway?). -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you, but chose to follow the Wikipedia rules and wait for official info regarding this. Kennvido (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is at Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Passenger_and_crew_numbers Steven Walling • talk 22:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia rules" are to wait for reliable sources, not a specific one of your choosing. In this case, the sources, particularly when citing the airline itself, are very reliable. If anything, the airline (who employs these crew members and transports these passengers) is the most reliable source out there. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, point it out to the high muckity mucks here and see what they say. Kennvido (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop reverting confirmed passenger and crew numbers

Ken, stop reverting the passenger and crew numbers. The Reuters link has the numbers confirmed from the airline which is as solid as you can get. At a certain point this stops being just annoying it becomes vandalism so please stop. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, nothing has been officially announced. Please stop your edit warring. CNN just said THEY do not know exactly what the true numbers are. Kennvido (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

They do not know the injury/fatality numbers, and I've been fighting to keep that off until there is confirmation. The airline is confirmation enough though for the number of people on the plane unless you can point me to a policy somewhere that says otherwise. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am leaving and going to let all of you talking head news type wannabees go at it. Kennvido (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

News conference 'officially' stated numbers still fluid and NOTHING EXACT. Kennvido (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your reverting at Asiana Airlines Flight 214. Thank you.. See WP:ANI#Repeated reverting at Asiana Airlines Flight 214. -- tariqabjotu 23:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Good, I hope you are notified that you should not put in unofficial info in future articles like this. Kennvido (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TRL (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I did NOT add unsourced material. The two teens was already in the updated cite there. But, just for you I put in another one. Keep your warning. Kennvido (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ossie Schectman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [Maple Leaf Gardens]] in [[Toronto]]. Schectman and his teammates [[Sonny Hertzberg]], [Stan Stutz]], [[Hank Rosenstein]], [[Ralph Kaplowitz]], [[Jake Weber]], and [[Leo Gottlieb|Leo "Ace" Gottlieb]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bob Filner

I see you added something saying that Filner is going to take a leave of absence. I can't find any confirmation of that online, but I did find that Filner was going to make a statement at noon; was that what he said? I kind of hate to have it in there if we can't link to a confirmation, but if it's that recent maybe it will hit the Internets soon. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This live blog [10] says he is going into therapy but does not mention the words "leave of absence". --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, I watched the announcement live and put what HE said. Kennvido (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what is going on. Your latest additions including the source are showing as under "pending review" and I can't find a way to approve them. Your contributions used to be autoapproved. Did somebody slap full protection on or something? --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, somebody accepted the changes. But I still don't understand what happened. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. I just know this guy has got to go. Have a great day! Kennvido (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. What happened was this: "When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending and are not visible to most readers." What happened was, some IP added a "citation needed" tag to your edits. As an IP they needed to be reviewed, and the result was that all subsequent edits (including you adding the citation they had asked for) also went under review. Weird! --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

United States v. Bradley Manning

Hi, I undid your edit because the sources I saw (which I had added to the article) say he was convicted, among other things, of five charges of espionage. You changed it to six without indicating the source. —rybec 20:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My fault... I redid, thanks for the notice my friend. Kennvido (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your source, but I intend to change it, for the time being, to say "five or six" because the Atlantic Wire, the Epoch Times, and a couple of others not in the article (radio report and Huffington Post blog) said five. —rybec 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Many, including CBS, are saying 6. But do what you want. It will just have to be changed at a later time and waste contributors and editors and admins time. Kennvido (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I too expect it will become clear before long. I don't consider it a waste of time to indicate to readers when sources differ, nor do I see the need for an administrator. —rybec 20:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree when one thing is so concise as to the amount of charges and some reliable sources differ on the number, maybe some leeway should be given. As I said, do want you want. Kennvido (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kennvido. You have new messages at Talk:Blue Rhino propane plant explosion.
Message added 07:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You need to show how this meets WP:NEVENT LGA _talk^edits 07:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	The Tax Issues Barnstar
	For your work on making the article about John Koskinen readable. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

NYT report on A-Rod suspension

Not wanting to edit-war here--but if MLB has told the Yankees that A-Rod will be suspended, that's official in my book. Not likely the Old Grey Lady would report that if it were otherwise. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 14:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If you read the same thing I did...'someone close to MLB or the team told the NYPost or the NYDailyNews or the NYT... That's NOT an official announcement from Major League Baseball. I have been taught lessons about this and will follow the rules. I am not angry at you, but I do wonder why you want to jump the shark. Let's just work together. Thank you. Kennvido (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ben Jealous

Hi, I'm new here to Wikipedia. Thanks for helping with my edit on the article. I thought the link was marked "dead" to the prior story but after you re-added it, it looks like a venue called "Wayback" is a good source to retrieve old articles. Have a great day. Cheers, CyberSeraph (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

FriendFinder: Difference between revisions

just an fyi - FriendFinder Networks (FFN) the publisher of Penthouse & others filed bankruptcy. Penthouse doesn't exist as an entity per se it changed it's name to FFN. "The California company that owns Penthouse magazine and a host of online dating and adult websites filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday."

You might just want to add to your comment a (see FFN bankruptcy below) as I opened up it's own section as the initial section was dealing with pre FFN. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Db54 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Hurricane Sandy

I am contacting you to let you know that there is currently a discussion going on that you might be interested in on Talk:Hurricane Sandy. I noticed that you were one of the top contributors to the article, so I figured I would let you know. Please don't feel like this invitation means that you have to participate, but feel free to do so if you desire. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Kennvido (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was recently closed by me, but has since reopened. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)