User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/1

Re:deleted talk section

Its not up to you to decide what can and cannot remain on a talk page. Removing discussion like you just did can result in a block. Do not attempt to pull such a stunt again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you in any way committed a blockable offense or were trying to pull a stunt. Kla'quot 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The "asperations" in this case were relevant to the discussion, as it showed that a consistently problematic editor had returned under the guise of a new username trying to cause more of the same kind of problems that he had been for more than 6 months now.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting to YES

A good book that I am currently reading: Getting to YES. Instead of dealing with SlimVirgin directly on a position as what is currently happening with the marriage section, it may be useful to back up and try a different approach. It can be frustrating but if you read the book, it helps with understanding the dynamic. I'm busy until next weekend but after that I'll stop talking so much. --Deodar 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

See also Getting past NO. --Deodar 01:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Idea

It can be very difficult to add things to the AoIa page (see more removals [1]) but I have found in the past that it is significantly easier to create and edit pages that provide useful context. An article that outlines the history, development and factors for success (or influence) of the anti-apartheid movement both in South African and in the international community would be very valuable both in outlining history as well as providing a study for what other movements should do, what hurdles to expect and how long the path can be. --Deodar 04:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's all too easy to add junk to the Aola page, though occasionally some of it gets removed as well. The Aola page is already very long, and it doesn't need an explanation of what Apartheid was; Apartheid is likely the most famous system of racial discrimination the world, all the more so because of its current popularity as an epithet. And Wikipedia is not a platform for activism, nor should it be used to teach "other movements" what they should do. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Deodar was making a suggestion to start a new article describing the history of the movement to abolish South African apartheid. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Kla'quot 09:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Posting to the Pump

OK, thanks. I'm glad you approve. I'll copy/paste it directly to the (Assistance) forum. BTW - it's a real pleasure to have a polite difference of opinion with someone who's behaviour is so eminently reasonable and civil. :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted it as "Request for opinions". Now I guess we just wait....--Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

misleading sections

Those titles are really misleading, if you think about it. What are we supposed to do with arguments from sources that express no opinion one way or another? -- Kendrick7^talk 09:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Can you give me an example of an arguments from a source that does not express an opinion? Kla'quot 09:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the heading more specific because the section itself is a mishmash. It doesn't tell a coherent story. I'll have to think about this some more. Kla'quot 17:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of ...

Sorry for reverting you there. I should have talked first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the facts and concepts first too, I think. Don't worry; we'll get there in the end. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

There are still some duplications and out of order stuff. Gotta run though. Best. --Deodar 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A voting?

Look at this: [2]. Is it it a force deployment or voting? Please give your opinion about this. --Hossein.ir 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, the problem is that some of them have favored trolling to edit warring. When obvious sourced facts can not be included in articles, and labeling other editors job as vandalism(for gaining more reverts) becomes regular, what else we can do? Every reasonable and useful information that is added usually removed by them. You know, the main problem with wikipedia with enough number of unfaithful editors any article can be ruined, and unfortunately this is happening. This really makes wikistress, and for me it's difficult to face this uncivility. Do you remember what's happened to Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? --Hossein.ir 15:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I though you may want to look at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements/Questions_for_Avraham if you want to ask questions from Avraham. --Hossein.ir 15:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The pen is mightier...in popular culture

I was just thinking if such a section would be appropriate. For example in the 1990 Batman movie the Joker says in a memorable scene: "The pen, is truly mightier than the sword!". I'm sure there are many other examples like that.--Eupator 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article the pen is mightier than the sword, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did here. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Another editor, User:Gamaliel, deleted the article, as he explained here. Sorry for your confusion! -- Kendrick7^talk 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hamas covenant

I agree with your decision to remove the link to "Islamofascism". However, the Hamas covenant most certainly does call for the destruction of Israel.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine," i.e. eliminate the Jewish state standing on it

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Etc., etc. It does not in these specific words say: "our goal is to destroy the State of Israel." But that's what it essentially says. Don't be so ridiculously literal.

-Jprg1966

Update: Fair enough. I apologize if I mistook your actions for being randomly defensive of Hamas.

Israeli Apartheid

Can you please help stop the edit wars and take a look?Kiyosaki 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Leo Frank

Frank was murdered before the entire process could be completed. Take the subject of the film The Thin Blue Line, Randal Dale Evans, for example. This is a very famous wrongful conviction, his entire appeal process only succeeded in commuting the original death sentence to life imprisonment, after Errol Morris made the film where the actual killer (who was already on death row for another murder) confessed, Randal Dale Evans was released after a new trial. Now suppose that after the first unsuccessful appeal process but before the film, Evans was murdered in prison. By your logic Evans would not have been wrongfully convicted because he was never declared innocent by the court system even though he obviously would have been. I hope you see the parrallels with the case of Leo Frank. The Frank case is not just cited by lay people, it is also famous among legal experts as a wrongful conviction.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Please vote 67.70.71.160 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Right

No one needs me as a spam guard... but when you've got an editor repeatedly trying to spam a CfD it helps to have spam fighters like myself. (→Netscott) 03:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Valerian Trifa

Why do you make edit to articles you have no clue about? At least you should have read that article before removing Category:Anti-Semitic people. As per your claim that "he led a rebelion against the Nazis", please read its article: Legionnaires' Rebellion and Bucharest Pogrom. bogdan 08:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Fredrick Toben

Hey dude, I notice you've been removing lots of people from the anti-semite category. I reckon Toben fits into this category, and I think that Toben would probably agree. He doesn't really hide the fact that he hates Jews. His website was also found by the Federal Court of Australia to "vilify Jews." What do you reckon? Drett 08:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Campbell

Sorry, but its not libel. Read Slander and libel under defenses: you'll see that several of them apply here: First of all, truth is an absolute defense: For her to claim libel, she must conclusively show that the claim is false. Second, she is a public figure, under the case law resulting from New York vs. Sullivan, our speech regarding her is protected unless it can be shown that it meets the following conditions (all of them): It is false, we knew it was false, and we had malicious intent or reckless disregard for her reputation. None of that is the case here. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (a law student).

I see it. Remember the standard in wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The fact is there are two sourced claims of anti-semitism. While I personally think the category should be renamed "alleged anti-semites", it's survived something like 4 CFDs.

Furtheremore, while truth is an absolute defense to libel, so is a good faith claim about a public figure the claimant believes to be the truth. The burden of libel in the united states is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. If Wendy Campbell has a problem with it, wikipedia has a libel email hotline she's welcome to mail, however we're not a censored project, and if she wants to claim libel, she must prove the falsehood of that claim. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But she's not a reliable source because it's not verifiable. Remember what constitutes a reliable source: Another wikipedia article is not a reliable source. Jerusalem Post is a fact-checked primary source, as is Sue Blackwell. Thats 2 reliable sources to 0. If Wendy Campbell came out in the new york times tomorrow, then you'd have a point, but that hasn't happened. And I shouldn't have to point out that it is a guideline that the subjects of articles should not interfere on the editing of their own articles as they cannot possibly maintain a neutral point of view. I'm going to revert and add the category back in. I'm asking you not to remove it until you can find a RELIABLE source that says she is not: by reliable I mean a fact checked publication that is not a blog, personal web page, or the subject of the article itself. If not, I'll bring the page to WP:AN where they can debate whether claiming libel constitutes a violation of WP:NLT, but I hate to waste their time when the facts clearly support that I'm right. So please, allow the category to stay unless you can find such data, or better yet, create a new category called "alleged anti-semites". ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed my last edit came off a little threatening. I didn't mean it like that, just that I don't plan on violating 3RR, and the people at WP:AN, while good natured, take forever to solve any sort of content dispute regarding libel claims. Sorry if you misread it somehow ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No no no, I'm not saying that SHE's not a reliable source, I'm saying that she's not a reliable source on wikipedia due to the "anyone can edit, and anyone can claim to be anyone else), and she's not a reliable source on her own personal pages (due to the personal page aspect not being a RS, and due to the guideline on people not editing their own articles). What I'm saying is she's only be a reliable source if she was commenting in a reliable secondary source: a newspaper, magazine, etc. THAT would be acceptable. But there is nothing to that. And I don't follow your analogy: If the NY times claims I like ice cream, and I hate ice cream, it doesn't matter: unless I get the new york times to retract their statement or publish something saying I like ice cream, or unless I come out publically in the washington post saying "Ice cream sucks, popcorn for life", I belong in the "People who like ice cream category". ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The NYT is always a reliable source because they're assumed to be fact checked. Therefore, they would not publish it without it being true, (or opinion, which does not conform to the scale of truth). I agree with you that the category sucks, but we have to work within the framework we're given. The proper solution in my belief, is to include a footnote to Wendy's claim within the article, claiming that Wendy disputes that she is an anti-semite. That way, its included in the category, but anyone interested in the topic will clearly see that it is disputed. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you hadn't noticed, there is a 3rd source of antisemitic comments, I just saw on the talk page, which also makes a good argument that the lack of commentary is due to her fringe position: reposted below:

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Thanks for fixing my talk page. Had it categorised me as grumpy mild-xenophone, that would have been reasonably accurate. I've been trying to remove stuff from Category:Anti-Semitic people too, but I haven't got very far. It seems superfluous to me to have anti-Semitic and Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi. I mean, can anyone point to a philo-Semitic neo-Nazi or Holocaust denier ? If there was an Arrow Cross or Iron Guard category, lots of Hungarians and Romanians could be cleared out too. Anyway, thanks again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Judaism and Christianity

See http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation09.html . Excellent explanation, written by a Rabbi. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeat. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is quite easy. Accepting a dead heretic as Messiah is abandoning Judaism. All Jewish authorities agree on that. The Messiah must be 1) alive and 2) recognized as being such by the Jewish leadership. Jesus is *dead*, has been dead for 2006 years. And he was not recognized by the Jewish leadership, neither then nor now, as being the Messiah. The Jewish leadership determined that he violated Torah law, and that's it. Then he is not the Messiah. Accepting Jesus as Messiah constitutes a full and complete renunciation of Judaism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel's edit

Regarding your comment [3] I'm particularly puzzled by his edit since that was the one source which I think everyone agrees is reliable. JoshuaZ 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)