User talk:Kenatipo

A time-lapse video of the march has been posted on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sjvc6baor8 ^[1]

No problem. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment re automatic creation of a ref section!VirtualDave 01:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know a whole lot about the case and I only glanced at the page but I didn't see anything on it that indicated that she was religiously motivated. Doesn't anything spring to mind for you? - Schrandit (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that she has had some interaction with that group during her incarceration but did she have any before? Is there any indication that she was motivated by religion when she pulled the trigger?

I guess that's the next question - when did she write that? - Schrandit (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Don't get upset about the block. Take the night off, watch a movie or something, then come back and continue with constructive work. Just be sure that when you revert someone (especially on a high-profile controversial subject like Tea Party movement), and it's not obviously vandalism, you initiate a discussion on the talk page. I think any reasonable editor would have agreed those links were not spam. Don't lose your cool. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 01:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware of the report on you, although I did post the warning above. As you had stopped editing after the warning, I hadn't seen a need to report. I am glad it was a short block, which should have minimal impact on your editing.

On the links and tags, I'll post to the article talk page in a few minutes explaining my reasoning for reverting your edit (a post I should have made immediately after reverting). I hope you and the others involved join me in the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good show on that, I always figured our peripheral sources had been telling the truth but a primary source had been elusive. Thanks for digging that up. - Haymaker (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good eye! KimChee (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are probably right about WP:BLPCAT not applying to the article itself, though I think in a situation like that the sourcing needs to be made explicit - the article seems to do this now. Thanks for your input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, You've done an outstanding job summarizing what Wills wrote, and I have no problem with it. I am even more impressed since I know you are not fond of Wills. By the way, I think it was a very good speech, and of historical significance, but not of the caliber of Gettysburg. That's a pretty high bar, though, isn't it? Thanks again. Cullen328 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I had actually seen that in my musings, it is well written and I plan on introducing most of it when I have more time and the flame war on that page has died down a bit. I have been through this sort of ANI drama before, everything will end up where it should end up for the rest of the folks involved sooner or later, all you have to do is wait. The old adage to keep a cool head has saved my neck at least twice in these sorts of things. - Haymaker (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I'm 19 - I haven't updated the userbox for years (I started editing when I was 15). Thanks for reminding me! Cheers, m.o.p 01:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Constable came first in rank; the Lieutenant was his deputy. Balfour was Lieutenant; but for much of his tenure, there was no Constable and he had the chief command. (The Constableship was in commission during the reign of James I, and the first Constable appointed by Charles I, in 1640, was soon withdrawn owing to Parliamentary opposition.) See W. L. Rutton's list of constables and lieutenants in "Notes and Queries" of 1908 and subsequent correspondence, which can be found in Google Books. Choess (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! If you're interested in the duties of the office, I think George Younghusband's "The Tower from Within," also on Google Books, may have some material on the function of Constables, Lieutenants, and other officers of the Tower. Choess (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kenatipo, I created a new article, Joseph Maraachli case, I thought you might be interested in. Feel free to get involved. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. Lionel (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Took a stab at answering your question from Masonry's perspective. see my talk page. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

YOU HAVE A NEW MESSAGE AT USER TALK: CANON LAW JUNKIE

RE: and which username do you suspect that is? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What, and be accused of "outing" him again? But, I will give you one oblique hint: mathsci. Kenatipo ^speak! 00:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not "outing" to name a suspected sock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sockpuppetry. The user, in consultation with admins, is being allowed to "retire" the name Wikimanone and edit under a different username. Something about "CLEANSTART", which I know nothing about. Kenatipo ^speak! 01:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors generally should be discouraged from changing usernames. In the case of a disruptive editor like Wikimanone, his checkered past, especially his block log, should follow him wherever he goes. If it doesn't follow him, the next admin to block him (it's only a matter of time) won't know his history, and won't mete out an appropriate "remedy", and the disruption and drama will continue. Kenatipo ^speak! 02:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I play? How many guesses do I get? Lionel (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

One. Kenatipo ^speak! 12:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Lemme see... How many letters? Sounds like...? (kidding) Lionel (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, have you seen this ? Looks like fun. If you have time to spare you may want to check it out. Lionel (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I nominate "Any conservatism-related article that wMo/bW has worked on first"! (You sure aren't very selective about who can join that project. But like the man said, it's only a matter of time). Kenatipo ^speak! 01:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

re F*** at SAU, I know it's highly offensive, but it might be helpful to leave this stuff around, for a little while anyway... Lionel (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. His usual M.O. would have been to revert me about 5 seconds after my edit. Kenatipo ^speak! 23:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiManOne for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you make another threat of violence as you did on my talk page you will be blocked. However, I redact the SPI.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on others, as you did on my talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you're describing as "a personal attack"?

BW, it shouldn't surprise you that people have to follow you around undoing your POV edits. The edit you're complaining about is a good edit -- we don't need Cottrell's full biography following his name, he's already wikilinked to his own article. Kenatipo ^speak! 15:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If so, (and combined with your over-reaction to my collegial desire to knuckle your head in a purely friendly way), I'm wondering if you may not be a little too thin-skinned for this game. If you're going to be an admin some day, you need to start growing a thick skin, NOW! --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

...and maybe you should stop this; you know it's offending the other party — so why do it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Which of the two are you calling "the other party"? Kenatipo ^speak! 19:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

??? There's just one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There are 2: Jasper and BW. Kenatipo ^speak! 20:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You're being deliberately dense; I'm talking about this of course. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm naturally dense, but I'm in good company. Go read Jasper's talk page so you can see how it turned out. Kenatipo ^speak! 03:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Seb, thank you for your first comment to Jasper on his talk page. After that, all you're doing is jumping to the wrong conclusion. (You and a few others). The bottom line is: it was just a simple misunderstanding, it's now resolved, and everything is fine. I don't have any problem with Jasper and I agree with Fountainviewkid's comment. The End. Kenatipo ^speak! 14:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered your question on my talk page Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

and a reply to your clarification. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm most grateful for your eagle eye. I'll check the dates (and the one undated ref) in the morning. Many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

[Removed by original tagger, because they've since been defaced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC) ]

Kenatipo, this isn't a great idea. Reply to it, or delete it. Changing the words and leaving the other users signature in a misleading way just plain wrong. Please either revert it back or delete it all.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that better? Kenatipo ^speak! 15:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Better. Still below the the behaviorial standard I'd like to see, but probably just enough to squeek by policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I shouldn't have left his name on it after I altered it. Thank you for pointing that out. Kenatipo ^speak! 16:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Your addition to User talk:Kenatipo#Eston College's Statement of faith (Saskatchewan) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Some folks just have no sense of humor. My version was a lot funnier than yours. Kenatipo ^speak! 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what the templates said:

• Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Eston College, without consensus, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.
• Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Eston College. Thank you.

but, this is what they meant!

• Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Eston College, without getting my permission first, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive to those of us blinded by our agenda, and has been reverted. Thank you.
• Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with tolerance-challenged liberals, which you did not do on Talk:Eston College. Thank you.

[ Removed for WP:COPYVIO Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC) ]

It's probably copyrighted just like the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed are copyrighted (they aren't, for reasons which seem obvious). Kenatipo ^speak! 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link if you're interested anyway: Eston College Statement of Faith & Historical Distinctives. WARNING!!! Do not open the link if you are allergic to Statements of Faith or any mention of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, etc., etc., etc. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

While you're around, Cube lurker, I have a question for you. Why did Cirt delete my page after all the issues had been mooted? Even you, as the nominator, said so! Any ideas? Kenatipo ^speak! 16:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not real comfortable answering for Cirt. However even though it was deleted you'r free to create a new user page, keeping in mind the concerns that led to that situation. Does that help?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, then just give me your own opinion. Should the page have been deleted? Would you have deleted it, had it been up to you? Kenatipo ^speak! 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on memory, but if I recall correctly I thought shortly before that MFD was closed all the content I objected too had been removed. If it were up to me I probably would closed it as resolved, with the understanding that the content we discussed wouldn't be re-added.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I appreciate your response. I think Cirt either overlooked your final comment in the MfD, or didn't give it enough weight, as you were the nominator. Kenatipo ^speak! 18:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical footnote: In September 2011, Cirt was de-sysopped by Arbcom decision. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please visit this link as your opinion and expertise would be appreciated. Fountainviewkid 21:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the situation is under control! Kenatipo ^speak! 22:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. My friend has showed up. Your input would be appreciated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Fountainviewkid_reported_by_User:BelloWello_.28Result:_.29. And yes I know BW will accuse me for canvassing, but I'm just trying to inform all the relevant parties. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't canvassing if you also notify someone like Hfran. Lionel (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay!

This program aims to pair up any user who's willing to learn with a more-experienced user. I'd recommend it - I've mentored a few people in the past, but I'm busy for the time being.

Hope that helps! :) m.o.p 05:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It helps a lot! Thanks, Master of Puppets. Good to hear from you again. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Blueboar. Just off the top of your head, can you tell me where, exactly, Aquinas used the term "Great Architect of the Universe" or something similar? Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Summa Theologica: "And, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 3): 'What can be more foolish than to say that the divine Architect provided this one sun for the one world, not to be an ornament to its beauty, nor for the benefit of corporeal things, but that it happened through the sin of one soul; so that, if a hundred souls had sinned, there would be a hundred suns in the world?'" He spends quite a bit of text comparing God to an architect, but this is the only quote I found that actually called God "Architect".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek. I think it might be coming from Question 27, Article 1 in the First Part: "Reply to Objection 3: To proceed from a principle, so as to be something outside and distinct from that principle, is irreconcilable with the idea of a first principle; whereas an intimate and uniform procession by way of an intelligible act is included in the idea of a first principle. For when we call the builder the principle of the house, in the idea of such a principle is included that of his art; and it would be included in the idea of the first principle were the builder the first principle of the house. God, Who is the first principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed." --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the Fordham reference for Summa Theologica#Influences; I knew I heard it somewhere but couldn't find the source--Geremia (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit to my userpage. I thought the word was "innocent". But I looked up the lyrics and found instead "innocence". Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "innocent" goes best there. I'm glad you changed it. I'm not sure what online website I found the word "innocence" at. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A proposal has been made to rename the two abortion articles to completely new names, namely 'Opposition to legalized abortion' and 'Support for legalized abortion'. The idea, which is located at the Mediation Cabal, is currently open for opinions. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.

I just noticed your comment at Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia), and I wanted to clarify that "Masonic temple" doesn't belong in a list of "places of worship". We worship at our home churches/synagogues/mosques/whatever, not at the Lodge building; that's for business meetings. You should find out when your local Lodge has its next open Installation of Officers. That would give you a better idea what we're about. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Sarek, I confess. I'm still scratching my head about what the Masons are all about. Temples, cathedrals, shrines, rites, altars, Jahbulon, Great Architect -- it's all very confusing. I was reading our wikipedia article about Freemasonry (and I meant to mention this to Blueboar) and questions arose in my mind: what are the Masons?, what is the purpose of the organization?, why did the organization come into existence? etc., etc., etc. I don't think the article answers these important questions. Then I started reading some of the Masonic info in the references and came away with the impression that defining what Masons believe is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. The landmarks don't seem to be fixed, and all that secrecy stuff is apparently hampering clarity. As for attending the next meeting of my local Lodge, I have no interest in being excommunicated from the Church. I'll just stay home and read my Catechism -- practically no Jello there. (As an inclusionist, by the way, I believe that most Masonic temples should also have their own articles as they seem to do some good in the community. I'll get doncram started on it right away! Hahaha.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand Church doctrine, the prohibition is against _joining_ the Masons, not investigating them. You should be alright there. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as the others go, the altar is at the center of the Lodge room to support the Great Light in Masonry -- the Holy Bible. (Or Koran, or Tanach, depending on the religious leanings of the members.) Jahbulon I can't help you with -- it's not in the first three degrees, which are the heart of Freemasonry. "Great Architect of the Universe" is just a term we use to refer to God without naming Him -- it's functionally equivalent to "Creator of Heaven and Earth". If we name God, someone's going to get hung up on the actual name, but if we use a title that we can all agree refers to God, whatever we call him in our hearts, there's much less divisiveness. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good work.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I apologize for the bad spelling/punctuation/grammar mistake.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid, thanks, but I don't know what I did to deserve such praise (I haven't even put those "congratulations" templates on BelloWello's various pages yet!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you mean putting paid to user:Salegi et al, Mathsci and Lionel get all the credit, and you deserve credit too for keeping him engaged until the admins finally figured out what was going on. Where you get your persistence, I'll wish I knew. (Maybe it's an Adventist thing, hahaha). --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes Mathsi and Lionel are awesome too. As for my persistence, well that's just me. Believe it or not some Adventists can be lazy, but hey call it Protestant Work Ethic if you will.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! (I'm glad the verdict was practically unanimous). --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, though I just express a little confusion as to what I'm being thanked for. Courcelles 01:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being so oblique. I'm celebrating the banning of my wiki-nemesis Salegi, and thanking you for your role in it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There's really nothing to celebrate. Banning a user is the ultimate remedy the community has, and is always something to regret, and never to look on with joy. There will be less disruption now, but in essence, what we have done is told another person that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, except him; and while this is a necessary duty, it is never a happy one. Courcelles 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Poor Courcelles! You sound like you just pulled the switch on the electric chair Salegi was strapped into, and now you're filled with remorse. Lighten up! He's not dead; you didn't send him to Hell for eternity. Lighten up! God help anyone who takes Wikipedia too seriously. To me, this banning is about as regrettable as taking a loaded weapon away from a 5-year-old who has already "accidentally" shot a few people with it. When BelloWello matures to the point that he realizes that the rules do indeed apply to him, then unban him! --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

See Southern Adventist University, Ouachita Hills College, and La Sierra University. He may already be back.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yes it does look like our late friend, but how can he be in Wisconsin and Vancouver at the same time (although another editor told me if he also edited from his cell phone he could be in Pittsburgh and Delaware at the same time). You're doing the right thing in requiring that those edits conform to policy. I know it's annoying. I don't know what else to tell you. I've never "preferred charges" against anyone myself (too afraid of embarrasing myself) but if these single purpose IPs get really disruptive I'm sure Lionel and Mathsci would help out. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that Jclemens and Lithistman (LHM) are helping out. Great! --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup we got editors and admins galore on it! Hopefully this will assure safety from him who should not resurrect.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for corrections of my spelling. StormContent (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid's mentor, Atama, told us that when FVK's edit-warring block was lifted on June 28, 2011, that FVK imposed on himself a 1RR rule for all articles. In the 13 days following, FVK made 9 edits in article space spread among 3 articles. Eight of the edits are reverts of sock-puppets of banned user BelloWello. All the edits, except one, have a descriptive edit summary. The nine edits are spread fairly evenly over the 13 days: 2 on June 30th, 2 on July 1st, 1 on the 4th, 2 on the 7th, 1 on the 8th, and 1 on the 11th. It is obvious from this that FVK was keeping his promise to stop edit-warring. On the 11th of July, FVK reverted an edit by Lithistman, in order to remove a notability tag. FVK's edit on July 11th earned him a one month block. FVK is accused of edit-warring, tag-teaming, "refusing an invitation to self-revert", "feigning indignation", "warning another editor", etc. But the recent history of his editing shows he was keeping to his self-imposed 1RR limit. His sole edit on the 11th was the first he'd made to that article (GYC) in ten days. The GYC article is not under any editing restrictions. It's not 0RR or 1RR; it's just a normal 3RR article. If blocks are supposed to be preventive instead of punitive, this one missed by a mile because there was nothing to "prevent" here. FVK had already modified his editing behavior since 28 June. FVK's block does not make any sense. You can arrive at the conclusion that a block is justified only if you assume that FVK was repeatedly acting in bad faith (he wasn't), but making that assumption is contrary to our AGF policy. A SINGLE REVERT EDIT TO AN ARTICLE IN TEN DAYS IS NOT EDIT-WARRING!

And the smart people sit around scratching their heads, asking "Why are we losing editors?" --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. This block is a bit overkill, to say the least. The reviewing admin is completely correct, there is no excuse for violating WP:3RR (exemptions aside), however this is not a 3RR violation. Hell, even if this were a WP:1RR article he wouldn't have violated that bright-line rule. As has been noted, he self-imposed a one-revert type activity, and there has been no indication that that activity has not been followed, so I must ask: what is being "prevented" here? - SudoGhost™ 05:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, I recommended a greater block reduction than Bwilkins had implemented, but to be honest while it's commendable that you are looking out for FVK, I think that you may be making things worse for him at this point. FVK is very discouraged and the best thing would be to encourage his return to Wikipedia at the expiration of the block rather than reinforce the appearance of persecution, because doing so only makes Wikipedia look more unwelcoming. His block will be lifted in only a few days, and I'd like to see him able to bounce back from this. -- Atama頭 14:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Atama, for your wise, mentoring counsel, and for recommending that the block be reduced essentially to time served (Jclemens also indicated in one comment that 16 hours was enough). I will do my best to be quiet (for the moment). --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just realizing that us both editing Catholics for Choice may actually be the first time I've seen you since you took your break for Lent - how are things? (Unless, y'know, I saw you elsewhere and forgot, which is certainly possible - but still, how are things?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing fine, Ros, thank you for asking. How have you been? Are you and Haymaker married yet? --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to take you to task for your comments about Bill Donohue on Frances Kissling (there's an unfortunate turn of phrase). Big Bad Bill may be abrasive and partisan, but I don't think he's a liar. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, I've just been amusing myself beating up admins and ArbComs at every opportunity, along with deletionists and "progressive" SDAdventists. (WikiManOne is gone, so here we pause for a moment of silence). --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, I should hope not (check out my user page). :P Anyway, while it's not directly relevant to the article since no one has tried to include it, there's still no record of Kissling saying some of those things, and I doubt Donohoe went undercover and heard her - for one, he's recognizable, and for the other, he wouldn't be able to restrain himself and keep up the facade. :D Anyway, hope Lent was fine, months ago though it is now. I remember saying to NYyankees51 at the time that he should consider one of these instead of a Filet-o-Fish - perhaps you'll consider it next year. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you reverted me when I changed the IPA of Mo Duplessis's name. Grrrrr! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you're right! Yeah, it's a Quebecois pronunciation thing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I'm crushed that you haven't been following my brilliant commentary on the "Let's Rename Pro-life" page (Mediation Cabal right?). --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh gosh, no. I made my comment and got outta there. Way too long and convoluted, particularly since I don't care what the pages are called as long as they are parallel. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, technically it's not nice to troll the Randroids. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think my "discussion" with V is winding down. (I had to look up Randroid). Thanks for the advice, chaos. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

De nada. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was terminated by a third party. Which is OK, since that page wasn't ours to usurp. I sort-of expect any discussion here to be eventually erased by Kenatipo, who won't want others to know how easily every single one of the "pro-life" arguments can be destroyed. Including its very definition! (By the way, I do not qualify as a "Randroid"; like most philosophers, Ayn Rand only got some things right.) V (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I just left a note on Chaos's talk page. I might copy our cabal discussion here (but only if you promise NOT to continue it). --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on Randroid. I had you figured for a different kind of 'roid anyway. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

An asteroid! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Name-calling is almost always inaccurate. I thought of copying our discussion to my own talk page, but decided it would just be showing-off to do so. If you copy it here, I might do some minor editing to it (clarifications, mostly). There is one thing I didn't think about putting in, before it was archived. Something about how, if you insist on taking the short-term view for the phrase "pro-life", you have no business opining about the long-term name for any Wikipedia article on that subject. By the way, it occurs to me that you made no comment about an alternate title I had proposed, "pro fetal rights". Care to do so (either here or there)? V (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer your last question: No. And, you convinced me not to post the conversation here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Perhaps you would be interested in losing another and completely different debate, say regarding the so-called "value of human life"? V (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. (and I don't feel defeated). --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me; I neglected to keep in mind that your postings in the other discussion revealed that you prefer ignorance to information, thereby allowing you to believe nonsense you were told to believe (as a child), regardless of whether or not there is any truth to it. What did Aquinas say about that part of Exodus where a husband is allowed to set an arbitrary value on the lives lost via a caused miscarriage? Has anyone besides me ever wondered about the possibility of that husband specifying a value of "zero"? V (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like an easy one. Just because someone owes you "a pound of flesh", under the law, doesn't mean you are obligated to collect it. That's answer number one, just off the top of my head. Answer number two is: no one has ever proclaimed the infallibility of St Thomas Aquinas or his writings, simply because he and his writings aren't infallible. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misquote the Bible. The verses clearly indicate that the husband gets to set any arbitrary value he wants, and that is what would be owed; there is no "default" value specified (e.g. a pound of flesh). Which means that it should be obvious that, at least for unborn human life, its value can be zero whenever the person in charge of it wants it to be zero. It is allowed to be zero by the Bible! And I now rephrase something I wrote above: "like most philosophers, Aquinas only got some things right". V (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you guys, you know what's a really good Wikipedia article? Eristic. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was misquoting Shakespeare! I stand by my answer. And, while Aquinas was not infallible, what he wrote contains TONS of TRUTH with a capital T, which is why the Church holds him is such high regard. Chaos, of course, is correct. It is unlikely that you could convince me of your position and vice versa, so let's go on to bigger and better things (as much as I enjoy arguing). --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Chaos may be correct about you, but my goal is more to educate the ignorant than to just win an argument. One of the problems with Aquinas living in the 13th Century was that this was long before the microscope was invented, and thus it was also long before human sperm and eggs were discovered. Any religion-based claims made, that don't take the fundamental facts into account (about the molecular biology of reproduction), are merely claims. For example, there is the claim that a soul begins to exist at conception. The problem here is that the egg-fertilization process is now known to be purely physical in nature, and anything that can be created as a result of a purely physical process can also be destroyed by purely physical means. Therefore, if it happened to be true that an immortal (and thereby non-physical!) soul begins to exist at conception, it can only do so as a consequence of some other and purely non-physical process. Perhaps an Act of God. However, God is supposed to know lots of stuff. Like, for example, whether or not the DNA in that just-fertilized egg is faulty, and will lead to a miscarriage. Is God some kind of idiot who creates (or some kind of weakling forced to create???) souls for bodies that can't possibly be born? Apparently, a lot of people seem to thing that God is exactly such an idiot or weakling. Not me! How about you? Then there's the physical process that yields identical twins, or triplets, or quads, or... --it happens days after egg-fertilization, when a "blastocyst" is ready to leave the egg and hunt for a womb in which to implant. The blastocyst can literally break apart into separate individuals during the process of getting out of the egg. Where do those other souls come from? Or, worse-for-the-soul-creation-at-conception-notion, are a significant number of people whose bodies are "chimeras". There was an extremely interesting show a few years ago on the Discovery Health Channel on that topic, titled "I Am My Own Twin". It turns out that two separate blastocysts, which might typically develop into fraternal twins, can sometimes merge to form just one human body that gets born. Where did the second soul go? It seems to me that God has always known all about the twinning and chimerism situations, and, logically as a result, altogether refrains from creating souls until the reproductive situation has stabilized (thereby falsifying the claim of a-soul-begins-existing-at-conception). Oh, but God should also know how likely a woman is to seek an abortion! Why should a loving God create a soul in that case --just so the woman can be condemned??? Finally, what does an unborn developing human body need a soul for, anyway? It's not like there are any significant free-will choices it can make during a pregnancy! Worse, the womb is, for at least the first six months after conception, a "sensory deprivation" environment, and experiments show that most people will go crazy after a week or so, locked into such a place. Why would God do that to an innocent soul? V (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free, Objectivist V, to expatiate at will and at length on my talk page. I am an inclusionist and I enjoy the attention (at least while you're typing you won't be out molesting children), but please don't expect any responses from me -- anything I could say to you is probably more eloquently expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Summa Theologiae. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look and didn't see much in the way of Truths. Just claims. How about you pick one? Or how about I pick something Jesus supposedly outright-told someone, "You shall be born again", and mention some actual supporting evidence for such a thing ( Twenty_Cases_Suggestive_of_Reincarnation ), and you tell me why the Catholic Church prefers to claim something else, altogether. V (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In general, NO Church of any category has any business making claims that Science can eventually put to the test. Because the Church generally ends up looking stupidly fallible, as evidenced by the Galileo incident and the worthless claim that the Earth was at the center of the Universe. But was the Catholic Church smart enough to learn from that mistake? HA!!! Well, here's something that has acquired some (not a lot, yet) attention from Science http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp --I'm just waiting for the experiments to be done, to find out when a soul's weight is added, either to a just-fertilized egg, or to a new-born baby, or to the developing body somewhere in-between. V (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in irrationalities that have zero supporting evidence. Real Truths always, always make logical sense, and can be supported with facts. Here's a hypothetical question for you. Suppose a flying saucer landed near you and an obviously nonhuman alien being stepped out, and politely requested directions to an abortion clinic, because such a thing wasn't obtainable elsewhere.... What would you say? Remember, we're not talking about human life here.... V (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note I specified "hypothetical". That's because the evidence for such is slim --although, possibly, better than the evidence for sightings of the Virgin Mary ( http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/sts-48.htm ). Anyway, it certainly is a big Universe out there, with plenty of room for other intelligent species. Most people don't even realize that the part of the Universe that we can see, often called "the Observable Universe" --which is known to contain at least 100 billion galaxies averaging 100 billon stars each-- is, logically, just a small piece of a larger (and still finite!) whole. The logic relates to a conventional explanation of the observation that all the relatively distant galaxies appear to be receding away from us (the farther away, the faster). They say to imagine a spherical balloon with some dots evenly spaced on its surface, and to then inflate the balloon. You will easily see the distance increase between the dots. That's an "analogy", which can be extended by noting that only a portion of the surface of that inflated balloon represents the "observable universe"--we would be in that balloon surface, seeing only a local area, very much like when you stand on the surface of the Earth, you only see the local area out to the horizon. The rest of the balloon's surface is certainly there, but we just can't see it. Multidimensional analogies can be fun. Let's look at a "lower" dimensional version of the analogy, which is an expanding circle in a flat area. Like the balloon surface, we would place a bunch of dots around the circumference of that circle, and as it expands, the dots become more and more separated (and we would be one of those dots in that curved line). Do note that the bigger the balloon or circle, the "flatter" or "straighter" any small segment of the circle or balloon-surface will seem to be (remember all those centuries when many people thought the surface of the Earth was mostly flat, mountains and valleys excluded...) Mentally moving dimensionally the other way, the Universe we observe occupies a 3-dimensional volume of space, and it appears to be very "flat" --we can't detect much in the way of a 4-dimensional curvature (except near objects that have huge gravitational fields). IF our Observable Universe is a segment of the "surface" of an inflated 4-dimensional "hyperballoon", then it is most-extremely huge, and our Observable Universe is a very very tiny segment of it, indeed! So, that allows for plenty of room out there for other intelligent species, than just us humans here on Earth. (Whether or not any of them would deign to visit us, given the bigoted and xenophobic tendencies of much of humanity, is another question altogether!) I therefore repeat, given the hypothetical situation where you encounter an intelligent nonhuman alien being, who asks for directions to an abortion clinic, what would you say (hypothetically, of course!)? V (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On the extraterrestrial-aliens front, there is one particular claim that is often made. Do note that I know it is a claim, and so I don't give it a lot of credence, but I do find it to be (quoting a famous fictional human/alien crossbreed) "fascinating". Because, so far as I know, everyone who claims to have been abducted by aliens also makes this claim. The claim is that the aliens are telepathic. Humans basically/mostly aren't. It has occurred to me to wonder about the definition of "an animal". Here on Earth we assume a "mere animal" is just about every non-human on the planet, dolphins and certain primates possibly excepted. But what would telepathic aliens think? Could it be that to them, every non-telepathic species is a mere animal? If so, then human egotism could be in for a big shock someday!!! Although, as seems to be mostly true (and I would do this too, if I was them!), the aliens mostly stay away from Earth because these animals are armed with nuclear weapons! V (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's something about a real live non-human intelligent being-- Koko_(gorilla) --well, she's about as intelligent as a human toddler who has only recently learned some language skills, but then Koko also only has about the same amount of brain as a human toddler. V (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A somewhat more alien species (gorillas, after all, have something like 95% of their DNA in common with humans), which also appears able to communicate creatively is the dolphin ( http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?80686-Dolphins-Have-Language-Including-Names-Researchers-Say ). One of the reasons that it has been difficult for humans to figure that out is the simple fact that some of the sounds a dolphin can make are ultrasonic, outside the range of human hearing. How easily could you learn/understand a human language if you could only hear one word in three? And an even more alien species is the octopus. They can communicate soundlessly, using their camouflage ability to change skin coloration-patterns (and their eyes, with full color vision, are actually better-engineered than mammalian eyes; their retinas can't detach and they don't have "blind spots"). And, remember, octopi are equipped with environment manipulators (they have tentacles; we have fingers). Large octopi have fairly large brains, also. It is as yet unknown whether or not they can communicate intelligently, like dolphins, Koko, and humans. We might be eating them too fast to ever find out. I suppose some Religions are stupid enough to claim we should eat them, before we can find out! --just so that another worthless "precept" about the "moral superiority of humans" can't be falsified! V (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Octopi" isn't a valid plural of "octopus". It's a mistaken formation based on interpreting "octopus" as having a Latin "-us" ending when in fact it has a Greek "-pus" ending. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Valid" depends on the dictionary. I have one here (paperback "Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary" 80,000+ entries, copyright 1977 & 1979, my edition printed in 1985) that indicates both of the plural forms of "octopus" are acceptable. Personally, I like "octopi" because it takes less time to type, but when reading if I encounter either form I know what the writer is talking about, and that's good-enough for me. Arguing about it is like arguing whether to spell (for example) a certain other word as "color" or "colour".... V (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Valid" depends on the dictionary? And you call yourself an Objectivist. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that most things are relative is indeed an Objective Truth. (That's why "pro-life" can be accurate in the short term but mean "pro-genocide" in the long term!) But you are welcome to pick up your favorite dictionary and tell me what it says about the plural of "octopus". The dictionary I mentioned (and I didn't look to see what it said until after I read your earlier post) I bought years ago becuse it seemed to be the paperback with the most entries (most other paperbacks have 50-60 thousand), not because I was expecting it to support a certain point of view. V (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I invited NYyankees51 to archive our discussion, because (A) I noticed he had archived a different but quite large section of his Talk page, and (B) because of (A), I decided to go ahead and copy all that recent Abortion Debate stuff to my own talk page. That means I've copied our own discussions, also. You need not retain it on your Talk page, if you wish. And both of you --along with any other pro-lifers who dare-- are invited to post more information on my Talk page, which supports your side of the Debate. Not that any of you have any such valid data, of course! V (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(copied from "Chase me, ladies" talk page: see at Hilarious!)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where common sense is an uncommon virtue. You've renamed the Pro-life article something else. The article uses the term "pro-life" at least 114 times. (Have you looked at the article? It's clearly about "Pro-life"). It's like renaming an article titled "French fries", "Chips" because The Times thinks "french fries" is too Franco-centric, even though the French fries article uses the term 114 times and uses "chips" twice. It's one small step for political correctness; one giant leap backward for COMMON SENSE! Saint Jimbo, pray for us. --Kenatipo speak! 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Was this meant as a random outburst of right-wing exasperation, or an attempt to ask me a question about my reasoning when I closed the MEDCAB case? If it was the former, rest assured that I honestly do not care. If this was the latter, and you'd like me to explain my reasoning further, then I suggest you ask me to do so rather than plastering my talk page with nonsense. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you honestly expect not to be taken to task for your bad decisions? --Kenatipo speak! 18:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I do expect to be taken to task for my bad decisions. I do not believe that closing that case was a bad decision. I would be interested to know how you intend to 'take me to task', though. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I read your rationale. The only way you can claim "consensus" is if you decide to completely ignore the arguments (COMMONNAME and Google Search) of editors like me who have had the "bad taste" to declare which side of the political debate they're on. My arguments are valid and per policy. All I would like to hear you explain is how an article about the pro-life movement that uses the term more than 115 times can, by the simple measure of common sense, be called anything else. --Kenatipo speak! 20:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That most convincing of arguments, 'Google Search'. Google searches are notoriously unreliable, and skewed toward US-based topics, because of the simple fact that Google is US-based. Therefore, you would expect to pick up many more results for US terms rather than foreign ones, because most English-speaking nations are excluded from the search. There's also the fact that the US media tends to overwhelm Google searches, having many more online hits per person than, say, Canada, Tuvalu or Wales. The US is also significantly more right-wing than almost all other English-speaking nations, and has an unusually opinionated press - meaning that loaded terms such as pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-choice, anti-woman, etc are used more than the average. There's also the fact that your search will pick up a mass of unrelated results, such as the Pro Life Fitness Centre, in Paisley, the warisacrime.com website, and the vegan pro-life turkey movement. Pro-life can be applied to many arguments - the death penalty, the vegan debate, the war debate. Anti-abortion cannot be.

As for your comment about how often the article uses 'pro-life' - your logic is circular. For example, if I wrote the article Policies of the US Republican Party, and referred to them as 'idiotic policies' 114 times, would that be an argument to name the article Idiotic Policies of the US Republican Party? Of course not - it'd be an argument to reword the article to avoid the loaded term. So, I present you with a simple option to avoid you having to go to MEDCOM: Re-write the article so that it doesn't include 'pro-life'. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless the policy changed recently, Google Search is one of the recommended methods for determining the Common Name. It even tells you to use " -wikipedia". Change all the instances of pro-life in the article to something else? Can't. That's what reliable sources use. (If I'd had a search and replace function, I would have replaced "pro-life" with "opposition to legalized abortion" 114 times. Wouldn't that have been pretty?) --Kenatipo speak! 23:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you had your mind made up beforehand that "Pro-life" is a loaded term, perhaps you should have stayed out of the decision-making on the title. And, it is not circular logic to expect the article title to reflect what's in the article. --Kenatipo speak! 00:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, unless it changed recently, GHITS was never more than an essay, and was certainly never a policy. Secondly, your 'search and replace' approach to editing articles is simply wonderful - why not suggest it to the Featured Article editors? I'm sure that such a hack-and-slash approach to editing will save them a lot of time in the long run - If you like, I can suggest it to Ironholds myself. As to my having made a decision as to the term 'prolife' being loaded - so is 'anti-life', so is 'pro-choice', so are all the other variations. That's the point in changing it to a neutral title - so that we avoided loaded terms. The consensus was pretty clear on that point. I can see that you're not particularly happy with my decision, and that nothing I say will change that. If you feel I've made an inappropriate decision, feel free to take it all the way to ARBCOM, or press for sanctions against me at ANI. As it stands, I'm confident that I was impartial, and confident that the entire community will think so. Indeed, you're the only person who seems to have a complaint... The Cavalry (Message me) 16:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the one suggesting that every instance of "prolife" be removed from the article. Good luck with that. --Kenatipo speak! 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not my concern, I'm not interested in the content of the article. Good luck with the whole find/replace thing, it's a novel idea. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk about the tail wagging the dog! "Let's rename the article to something we like, then re-write the article so the article content will match the new article title." Bass-ackwards! (See above comments about common sense). --Kenatipo speak! 18:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, it gets better: "I'm not interested in the content of the article, so it doesn't really matter whether the article title reflects the article content or not." --Kenatipo speak! 19:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(at this point, the chat ended).

That was highly amusing. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we may as well laugh; don't do no good to cry. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not been involved in this particular issue until yesterday, after the informal mediation was closed 2 days prior, when I stumbled upon the pro-life article at the new title, and took a while to realize where I was, and dig into what happened, and how. Since then I've commented on the informal mediation decision and will summarize here.

I believe that this is an excellent case for ArbCom to take because much of it exemplifies a recurring behavior problem associated with article title decision-making: the ignoring of policy, particularly, WP:AT. The purpose of WP:AT is arguably specifically to avoid conflicts like this. We've had them before. We've resolved them before. We've developed consensus about how to resolve them, and we've reflected that consensus in policy, at WP:AT, precisely so that conflicts like this would be avoided in the future. It's not perfect, of course, but it's very clear on the key issues at play here. That's why I think it's a behavior problem to blatantly ignore the key relevant guidance given in policy at WP:AT, as was done in this case in moving Pro-life movement to Opposition to the legalisation of abortion. WP:AT was ignored in this decision in at least the following ways:

1. Despite WP:POVTITLE being very clear about how WP:COMMONNAME and neutrality complement each other in title selection (in short, following most common usage in reliable sources is being neutral), in his statement the closing admin implied that there is a conflict between neutrality and the name suggested by COMMONNAME, and that we should follow neutrality since it's a pillar and COMMONNAME is not. This policy-ignoring (policy-ignorant?) view was revealed in at least two phrases in the closing commentary: "While policy around common names etc. on this issue can be debated, I think the debate has come down firmly on the side of neutrality, ... " and "be aware that neutrality - not COMMONNAME - is one of the Five Pillars of the project.". The implication is that we don't have to follow COMMONNAME when the name it indicates is "not neutral" because we are more beholden to "neutrality", when policy clearly states the near opposite: following COMMONNAME is being consistent with neutrality because "True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.". The closing admin, and apparently many who participated in the discussion and influenced his thinking, were apparently unaware of this aspect of policy (and, thus, consensus), much less showing any appreciation for it.

2. Another aspect of WP:AT that was ignored was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which has been of crucial importance to countless title decisions. The closing admin clearly depended largely on the work of mediator Steven Zhang, who found so much significance in the fact that "Pro-Life" has uses other than the "anti abortion", that he has continued to argue that point even after the mediation was closed . But during the mediation discussion he made this statement: "Opposition to [pro-life] state that these terms are ambiguous, ... There was also the issue that Pro-life is not a specific term, and that it could also refer to other topics." The closing admin indicated the influence of this position in the following declaration: "the common name for the phenomenon varies so wildly over the English-speaking world that it cannot be pinned down with any accuracy."

But according to policy the position is irrelevant! If I may quote from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

If someone enters "pro-life" in the Search box does anyone doubt what topic they are searching for? With respect to considering ambiguity of meaning of candidate names in deciding titles, that's our only concern, according to consensus and policy. And yet here we are discounting "pro-life" because it's "ambiguous" and "not a specific term", without regard to whether the topic is primary for "pro-life", (much less "Pro-life movement") which it obviously is.

3. WP:COMMONNAME was of course ignored. Zhang admits that "pro-life/pro-choice" are of most common usage: "As for common usage, of course there's going to be more usage for pro-life and pro-choice". His IAR "good reason" for ignoring COMMONNAME is that pro-life/pro-choice is mostly American usage. That's true, but as the content of the articles clearly demonstrate to anyone who reads them, these issues are primarily American! Hence, American usage should be expected by most readers, and is therefore the most recognizable and natural choices for the title. In fact, the titles they came up with are so unnatural I have to look them up every time I need to quote them. So the principal naming criteria:

• Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic.
• Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia articles can have the same title. For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the Precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.
• Conciseness – titles are expected to be concise, and not overly long.
• Consistency – titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.

is another aspect of WP:AT they ignored, since the current titles are less natural and less concise than the original titles, and arguably less recognizable. Even on consistency the original titles should be preferred since I believe there is no precedent for the title "Support for the legalisation of abortion", but "Name movement" is a common pattern used in our titles. With respect to precision it's a wash.

4. The part of policy that is probably most blatantly ignored by Zhang and the closing admin is WP:TITLECHANGES, which states:

While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

Here are Zhang's words:

"This is a contentious topic, and opinions are clearly split pretty much down the middle. This one is going to require a compromise, and I don't think it's going to involve either of the names."

Zhang went on to propose his invented titles that the closing admin eventually endorsed: "The articles will be moved in line with Steven Zhang's suggestion".

Yes, this is a contentious issue. But it's only contentious because many involved, including Zhang and the closing admin, refuse to follow the very policy designed to avoid this kind of contention! Zhang openly admits this when he says, "in a normal situation ignoring policies is not something I'd advise against in a normal situation, but in this instance, there is a lot of dispute over the name of the article, and in situations like this, we agree that this would be a situation where invoking IAR would be appropriate. "

I implore ArbCom to rule that renaming articles on a basis that involves such a blatant disregard for consensus as reflected in policy is unacceptable behavior, as it opens the floodgates for anyone to move just about any article with little more basis than personal preference.

We have a policy that is designed to resolve these conflicts. It works. People just have to follow it and the only problem here is the refusal to do so.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE! and Born2cycle is carried from the hall on the shoulders of the admiring throng, having carried the day for TRUTH, LIFE, and the correct application of POLICY!

Hi Kenatipo, I have noticed your comment re: spaces before ref tags. I have checked the WP Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) and have checked the article for compliance and have found no problems. Did you fix them? I don't see any evidence of changes. Maybe if text is not changed the diff thing doesn't show change. If you did correct all the ref tag spacing, thanks. If not, what happened? Your help, in any case is appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, again, Donald. Yes, I removed about 10 spaces that preceded references. It's hard to see in a diff; you have to look very closely (the spaces removed don't show up in red). The spaces I removed are one of my hang-ups. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good. I was unaware of the no space before ref tags notion. Is this just for uniformity or are there other reasons, too? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the reason is uniformity (if you look at a few Good Articles, I think you won't see any spaces preceding reference numbers). To me, it's purely aesthetic -- I don't like the way the "extra" spaces look. The MOS supports me on this, doesn't it? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Complete BOLLOCKS! (It's OK; Hrafn knows that he has to take it if he's going to dish it out. Here he is, "reasoning" with a fellow editor:

Yes, I think this article should be deleted -- what has that got to do with saying everything twice? It's not nearly as hard to "work with someone who really wants your work to disappear" as with somebody who cannot edit their way out of a wet paper bag! Somebody overwhelmingly in love with appalling, passive-voiced, unattributedly weaselley phrasing. Somebody who feels the need to 'commend' the topic without any reason in the source. Somebody who seems unable to recognise an unreliable source. Somebody who insists on dumping unnecessary definitions and superfluous descriptors into the article. Somebody who scatters a detritus of unused subtitles and unfinished fragments. To be bluntly honest, even if I wasn't already convinced that this topic was non-notable, I might be looking for a reason to get this article deleted out of shear horror of its determined and ever-renewing WP:UGLYness.)

--Kenatipo ^speak! 19:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, Hrafn didn't say "Bollocks". You missed a signature. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

SOV, I know Dominus said "bollocks", not Hrafn; just giving him a taste of his own medicine. (Did you know Hrafn means "raven" in Icelandic or something?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed a talk-page entry of yours about NYyankees51 that looked pretty fed-up. I was wondering if you would like to add yourself and make comment on my (failing) arbitration request with regard to this character.

I'm not familiar with all the processes for finding resolutions to disputes on Wikipedia, so I guess the people are saying it's not much of a case. Oh well. check it out if you'd like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_Arbitration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowingfire (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Flowingfire. Thanks for the invite. But, "ideologically" there's little difference between NYyankees51 and me. Wikipedia needs more editors like 'yankees51, because it has a "liberal" bias. Several of your participants are every bit as devoted to their agenda as 'yankees51 is to his. Wouldn't it be more fair to ask that they all be sanctioned for POV pushing, not just 'yankees51? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey there.  :) No worries. I'm not objecting to anybody's ideology and I respect yours, as I respect people who hold other viewpoints than my own. (I do get opinionated. :P) What I do object to, however, are users who make it their mission to cause havoc or try to minimize articles that might center around a differing ideology. This is ultimately what I think NyYankees was doing: he couldn't handle any viewpoints other than his own, so he went around targeting articles, flagging them for deletion, and stripping them of content... as well as targeting users themselves for deletion, COI disputes, and bans. (That's the road I was on before looking at his history of doing this consistently and realizing I needed some kind of mediation, before ending up like the other people he tried to minimize or ban after months of time, drama, and controversy.) Anyway, much peace to you! Flowingfire (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kenatipo, I have been noticing your edits on the Leonard R. Brand article. Thanks. It is pleasant to work as a team to make the article better. I have been having trouble with my citation formats working. Take a look, if you have time, and see if you can make them work. Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Donald. I found the missing curly brackets in note 23. Also, I think those last 2 External links need to be shortened to just the blue-link and a very short description. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like you have gone ahead and shortened them. Looks good. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. (I'm always surprised when one of my little helpers doesn't appear immediately to revert my edits!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I find that phrasing acceptable. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, thanks for the information about the beginning of Eid ul-Fitr. I'm puzzled by something though, after looking at the website you linked to which shows where the new crescent moon was visible on August 29. If I'm reading the world map correctly, the new moon was not visible in Saudi Arabia on August 29, but only in Southern Chile, Polynesia (naked eye) and South Africa (binoculars). Am I reading the map right? --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you; I've been travelling. Yes, you're reading that correctly. But it's well known that there is a sort of confirmation bias on moonsightings. Muslims in the Middle East and the Arab world had long placed Eid ul-Fitr as starting the evening of August 29. And, low and behold, that's when the moon was "sighted". Of course, it's likely no one ever saw the moon (except in Chile), but the most unreliable of reports are believed in order to keep with the planned Eid day. It's only a matter of time before people just cut the crap and calculate the months (as some Islamic organizations, like some in North America, have already decided to do). -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tariq! --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. The Catholic church did in fact have several bishops in Norway at the time of World War II, which is why I thought it appropriate to mention them. It is not original research to state the fact by any stretch, but I might agree with you if you felt that it raises or reinforces prejudice. Leifern (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that there were about 3,000 Catholics in Norway during WWII. With all due respect, why would the Church need several bishops to care for so few faithful? Were the Catholic bishops asked to sign the letter to Quisling? Are all 60 signatories Protestants? These are just a few of the questions that occur to me. I need to do more research on the subject, obviously. It does seem to me prejudicial to single out Catholics for mention if we don't mention all the other minority religious denominations that also did not sign the letter: Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc., etc. We have to be careful in a section called "Moral responsibility" what we're inferring. Also, it looks to me like the reference for that paragraph is only a link to the source document itself, in Norwegian. If that's the case, then any mention of anyone who didn't sign the letter is OR, imho. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(From The Holocaust in Norway talk page:) Further research shows that in 1949-1950 there were 4,306 Catholics in Norway out of a population of 3,082,245. (These numbers are from: catholic-hierarchy.org website, by country., and '49-50 are the closest population figures). This means, assuming that both populations either stayed the same or increased in the 5 years after the war, that the Catholic population of Norway around the time of WWII represented 0.14% of the Norwegian population. In addition, the first Catholic diocese in Norway after the Reformation is the Diocese of Oslo which was elevated from an Apostolic Vicariate in June 1953. So, there were not "several (Catholic) bishops" in Norway in 1942, there was only 1, Jacques Mangers, and his diocese was the titular see of Selia (Selja, Selje). My point is that the Catholic presence in Norway was so small (less than 2 tenths of 1%) in 1942 that the Catholic leadership may not have even been asked to sign the letter to Quisling. Does anyone know for sure? --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What did this edit achieve towards building an encyclopedia? --John (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rothorpe made a perfectly appropriate addition of a single hyphen to the article and he got edit-warred and abused by Parrot and Malleus. I am speculating on what's motivating them to do that, because they are simply wrong about the hyphen after "seven". Did you ask Parrot and Malleus how their revert of Rothorpe builds an encyclopedia? --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It was the abuse I was calling you out on, not the revert. --John (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Parrot and Malleus reverted Rothorpe for no good reason. Then Malleus abuses Rothorpe. It's Malleus you need to be calling out, not me! His behavior appears arrogant to me. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Malleus was a bit shirty there, but I was asking how your comment advanced the discussion. It is always better to meet perceived rudeness with politeness; that way you keep the high ground and show a good example. --John (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Was my comment to Malleus rude? I did the same thing to Malleus that you are doing to me here — raising a question about someone's behavior. Is it a bad thing to point out to another editor that his behavior may be making the wiki-experience unpleasant for someone else? Of course not, or you wouldn't be here on my talk page. There are no policemen here; we are self-policing. Does questioning another editor's behavior help build the encyclopedia? That's very hard to say because it really depends on how prideful he is. Sometimes a word to the wise doesn't suffice. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, your eloquence is much appreciated, even though it falls on obstinately deaf ears. "Never heard of it so it must be wrong." We see why some people despair of Wikipedia. So it goes. Best regards, Rothorpe (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It was worth a try, I guess. But some people just decide not to be reasonable, for whatever reason. Thanks for your kind words, Rothorpe! --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Entirely deserved. Reasons for being unreasonable, yes, one can indeed speculate. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had looked at the MOS, but in fact it's there, called 'hanging hyphen'. All credit to John, who suggested raising it. I've copied that bit on to my talk page, if you'd like to have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your sequence of edits here does two main things - it separates bundled cites, and it adds named references. Neither choice is required on the Wiki. Perhaps you were not aware of it, but there is a guideline (WP:CITEVAR) against arbitrary changes to the established citation system of an article. While you may have reasons for preferring your choices, there are reasons for the alternative choices. Can you appreciate this? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, I did not know there was such a guideline! It makes sense though, on reading it. You are correct in all particulars. (I hardly ever work on Good Featured Articles). Oh well, live and learn. Fais ce que voudras. Thank you for pointing it out to me instead of just reverting with no edit summary. (And, sorry about speculating on your competence). --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like the ref got jumbled a while back or I did a restore from a bad version (yesterday I purged some stuff out that I knew I removed before!). It's the same magazine or its sister publication, but I think Cameron Hopkins wrote it and not Pat. I'll get it done, thanks for the heads up!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. I hadn't realized that the helicopter crash being discussed was the Sea Knight that was attempting to land on the USNS Pecos off San Diego. God bless the marines and the corpsman who died that day, and those injured. And thank you for your service to this country! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I appreciate that. Yeah that was a sad day, what the articles don't say is that when they were trying to cut those guys free, they were using KABAR Knives and the rescue knives actually cut the guys they were trying to rescue, that's why the SARK and WWR knives don't have pointed tips on them, you can cut all around a trapped victim without cutting them. Thanks again for keeping me honest, I love when this place works like that instead of critics taking cheap shots at your work! If you're ever up in Reno/Tahoe, I'll buy you a beer!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike, and God bless you, too. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Both are correct. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks.

My problem with "mistakenly" was that (without some sort of caveat) it did not accurately account for attitudes and confusion that existed at the time. After Vatican II, there was something of an internal power struggle in the Church between liberals and conservatives. The liberals held sway in the 70s, but the conservatives gained the ascendancy in the 80s. There is a sound argument for saying that the Church actually did relax its prohibition on Freemasonry (or at least Freemasonry as it is practiced in the US) during the more liberal 70s ... and then returned to its prior attitude in the more conservative 80s. I understand that the Church now says that it never wavered... but then the Church rarely admits to wavering (look at how long took the Church to actually say that it had changed its mind about the Copernican view of the solar system).

In any case... as long as there is the caveat to indicate that the "mistakenly" is applied retroactively, I think the statement is accurate. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Good man! The "spirit of Vatican II" has done a lot of damage. I have to disagree with whether the prohibition was ever relaxed, though, because the Church doesn't "change policy" affecting a billion faithful by sending a private letter from the Curia to some of the bishops. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, a lot of Catholics would disagree about Vatican II doing damage... But I do understand both sides of that argument. As for the folks who joined Freemasonry between 74 and 80... they acted in good faith, being told by their parish priests and bishops that it was OK. So if there was a "mistake", it was made at a very high level. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Belated clarification: it wasn't Vatican II that did the damage, it was people who read things into the documents that weren't there and were never intended. These excesses are justified by their perps as being "in the spirit of Vatican II". --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for jumping in! It's great to work with you again and have you on the team to get SAU to GA. If you like, it would be a great help if you could add {{cite}} templates to the citations. Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, old man, but I never use cite templates. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Any objection to my using cite templates. I don't really care what referencing system is used but the 'cite' templates are familiar to me and they can be organized systematically. The main problem is our imposed deadline of the seven days. It is a necessary deadline, I think, but does not allow for much discussion of preferred styles. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No objection whatever, Donald. Use whatever works and gives the desired result. Regarding the few Harvard style cites: they should be re-done to look like all the other references. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

*Okay, later today I will work on removing the Bibliography section and putting the citations into the 'Cite' format. I will wait for a bit. If you, or Lionel, see a problem with that approach, let me know. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Instead, I have noted the discussion where Biblio change to Sources is advocated. Have followed through on the idea. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Kenatipo, this is kind of belated, but thanks for all the work you have done on the SAU article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Donald. I just hope it passes GA review! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

SAU article is now recognized as a GA. Your efforts of the last few days were truly impressive. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Donald, I enjoyed it. (I even learned something about the citation templates). You deserve congratulations for all the work you put into the article, much more than I did. Three cheers for all who contributed, our friends and even Bello! --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at WP:WikiProject_Conservatism's talk page.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Kenatipo for helping to promote Southern Adventist University to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 00:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the 'star, Sp33dyphil. (I may just keep it here a while — I like the cross in the middle of it!). --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Please show your appreciation at least once each day for anyone who is doing any good work, either by giving them a cookie, or preferably a barnstar. --Sp33dyphil © • © 03:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should put it on your userpage. (smile) – Lionel ^(talk) 03:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Userpage? Userpage?!?! We don't need no stinkin' userpage! --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Userpage? Userpage?!?! We don' need no steenkin' userpage! --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 09:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Page watchers:

Please consider reviewing the DYK nomination for Kenatipo's article about C. A. Patrides.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A hero (and open set) has stepped forth to save C. A. Patrides from DYK-oblivion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Some close paraphrasing has resulted in our article perp-walking to the hall of shame. ;)

Please help! 19:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, Kiefer, but I find myself unsympathetic to Demiurge's line of inquiry. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You should examine my RfC and see my comparison of a "history" from the Socialist Party USA and the article on Socialist Party of America, 1950s-1980, in its pre-KW state. I made a longer list of paraphrases, which did not consist of "between 1952 and 1954" but rather "Stalinist democratic centralism" and "democratic centralism"; besides c. 12 paraphrases there were issues of RS/Fringe/Secondary, etc.

I don't mind the finding of a few paraphrases, and I welcome criticism. It was good to look at the article with refreshed eyes. I think that we didn't need the detail on C.A.P.'s rank, particularly since the progression from assistant to associate professor etc. is stanard.

Maybe the conclusion that the DYK nomination be put on hold was his idea of AGF, which he recommended last week on Jimbo Wales's page? ;D

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Good work! Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

On 28 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article C. A. Patrides, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Constantinos A. Patrides, the author of Milton and the Christian Tradition, earned a medal for heroism for his boyhood service with the Greek Resistance against the German Occupation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/C. A. Patrides.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 02:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Orlady! Thank you, Shubinator! and, thank you, Kiefer W! --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kenatipo. Sorry, but I don't know about any further discussions about goalkeeper statistics. I haven't pursued this topic any further since I posted at WT:FOOTY. --Jaellee (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

I see that your edit warring has continued unabated. Have you brought up this issue at WP:BLP/N or any other public venue as I have suggested? causa sui (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues are being discussed on the talk page; is that a "public venue"? I haven't removed the BLP violation about "O'Keefe's work being widely seen as deceptive", so there's no edit warring going on there. I added a boxquote to give a section more balance and it was reverted for bogus reasons so I restored it. It is also being discussed on the talk page. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You're reverting three separate editors now, according to the short-term history on the article. At this point, your persistent reverting is disruptive. I suggested BLP/N and an article content RFC because getting more eyes on the article is your best shot at finding people sympathetic to your viewpoint. I also hope that if you came to see these venues as outlets for you, that you might come to understand that it is better to pursue them as a means to getting your preferred changes rather than refusing to take no for an answer and reverting as many people as you have to.

When one editor is being reverted by several others in a continuing edit war, page protection becomes a liability and blocking is preferred to prevent further disruption without preventing other editors from contributing. I don't want you to feel threatened, and my preferred outcome would be that everyone talks it out until some agreement could be reached. But I have to prevent further disruption. I hope this helps. causa sui (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I need to correct something I said above: I did try to remove the weasel word "widely" after protection was lifted, and I added "by the left" to the end of the phrase, both actions were reverted. My mistake about the sequence of events. I have posted the problem to BLP/N, just now. Thank you for your patience, causa sui. Let's see what happens. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Thanks, Risker! You da man! (even if you really are a girl). Zero tolerance on incivility (and profanity)!

I didn't get to ask him my question: "Why did you come back?" --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kenatipo. Do you realize you're exceeded 3RR within the past 24 hours?

1) Here and here, you remove another editor's work by deleting "before the California AG released the raw videotapes" and "as an imposter". For the sake of argument, let's just call that a single revert. I don't have a problem with the "imposter" thing but the point is you clearly start your first revert here.

2) Next, with this edit here, you delete Parkwell's recent edit concerning the voter ID laws being controversial because of past discriminatory voter registration abuses and replace it with your preferred POV about the "Democrat Governor".

3) Next, with this edit here, you immediately revert Causia sui back to your new version.

4) Next, you reverted Parkwell's recent insertion of block quote text style here.

I'm not going to put a WP:3RR template notice here on your page, for as they say, "don't template the regulars" and your block log shows you already know what can happen when you exceed bright line rules. Nor am I going to run off and file a 3RR report right now. Just consider that you may want to self-revert to protect yourself, and that this sort of thing can happen quickly when you're more or less at odds with several other editors on content. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't realize that. I guess I don't count the changes I make when I'm improving an article, and heaven knows this article needs lots of improvement. If we could set the edit counting aside for a moment, I would like to know, in your opinion, which of my recent edits were not improvements to the article. (I assume you agree with me that we're here to improve the encyclopedia). In other words, do you have any problems with the sections I edited, after I edited them? --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We're always here to improve the encyclopedia - but somehow perspectives and opinion on what is and isn't NPOV often intercedes.  :) In any event, I only had a problem with this and this, which of course you already know. Hope that helps... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, AC, that does help. Those edits, though, are no longer in the current version, are they? I think I fixed the problem by putting the info about the governor's veto in a reference note. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct - those edits are no longer in the current version - my commentary on the 4RR was just to alert you to how easily that can happen... AzureCitizen (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kenatipo, I looked over the John Gribbin article and find the changes positive. Thanks for the heads up. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the black out of Wikipedia, have you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Donald. I took a quick look. If Darrell Issa is against the bill and Harry Reid is for the bill, then I'm against the bill. But, I also think Wikipedia should stay out of it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You created a dab page. Are you going to clean up? Archives are wrong at present. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your awesomeness, I will try to figure out how to correct the archives. Thanks for the heads-up. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If I missed anything, please let me know! Thanks. (Not sure I understand what you mean by "archives".) --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to think of the fancy title you gave me. You moved Home of Peace (nice, short and precise) to something long in Helena ... . You created a dab instead of it. Now all the former links to Home of Peace (DYK archive and other pages) link to the dab. Please correct that. I took care of my own user page. (Or consider reverting the whole process, which might make even more sense.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm back. Thank you for keeping your shirt on. Someone on one of your pages named you an Awesome Wikipedian, thus the title. I think I see where more links need to be updated with the new and improved article title. I'll do them right now. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I got everything. Please let me know if I missed something—as you can see, I don't do this disambig stuff very often.

As regards "nice, short and precise", a 5-minute Google search tells me there are Home of Peace cemeteries in the following other places (at least): Colma, (San Francisco) California; East Los Angeles, California; Porterville, California; Sacramento, California; San Diego, California; San Jose, California; Grover, Colorado; Lakewood, (Pierce County) Washington; and Alexandria, Virginia. Thus the need, imho, for more descriptive article titles. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the links. I created Home of Peace (Montana) for practical purposes. We disagree about the need to have long descriptive names, considering places which don't even have an article yet. A little bit of suggesting such a thing and discuss it first with those involved might be a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's probably a bot that could have fixed them in 2 minutes. Yes, we are on different wavelengths regarding how articles should be named. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your entry on the talk of Home of Peace, which shows too much boldness (the characters I mean): I am German, PumpkinSky isn't. It's "Ach, du lieber Himmel" in correct German, but what has that to do with the content of the article??? I didn't name the article, but recognized Home of Peace immediately as a cemetery. - Did you look at the suggested descriptive titles for the Beethoven sonatas which were not taken, in favour of short names? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Danke. Sehr interessant. Ich brauche wiki-werk. ;-). If there's a policy that says only Gerda and Pumpkin can use German on this encyclopedia, I'd love to read it; please put a link to it in your next comment here. (What part of "Oh, for heaven's sake!" don't you understand?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I did look at the Beethoven sonatas re-naming discussion you suggested; thank you. In my opinion, the requested moves were rightly opposed; the articles are properly named. Analogizing to our cemetery case, it is as though some do-gooder started an article called "Sonata No. 1" and I came along and re-named it "Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)". (I'm not completely arrogant—I've requested opinions on the matter in two other places.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata. Um Himmels Willen, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Would that you were as fussy about article titles as you are about the German language! I've never actually heard anyone say "Oh, for the love of Heaven!" so I used "Oh, for heaven's sake!" instead. (So sue me!) Regarding the Moonshine Sonata, I think COMMONNAME trumps title consistency in this case and I would have !voted with Kauffner to keep the article at Moonlight Sonata. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So, Moonlight Sonata is an exception to the consistency provision because COMMONNAME takes precedence. The other piano sonatas with "nicknames" should also probably have those names as their article names, per COMMONNAME. (You will be relieved to know that I have no interest in !voting in any of those move discussions.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Passion: He was despised, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I know the feeling! Thanks for the link—interesting article. Happy Easter! --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you I have mixed feelings (see also), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, I knew that Arendt might be a "Jewish" name—perhaps I should have wished you a Peaceful Passover instead. Shalom! I just want you to know that your work here on the Wikipedia is outstanding! I will read all your Messiah articles carefully (to learn from them). (I already knew that drmies was despised ). God bless you. --Kenatipo ^speak! 12:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know Drmies also. I thought of BarkingMoon when I wrote it, and of goodwill toward men. See my user for Good Friday, will change tomorrow. It was so fitting and ironic that (to mention the next) PumpkinSky's last edit before he was blocked was on this cemetery. Peace, could start here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

see here PumpkinSky talk 21:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the disruption, Pumpkin, but an article named "Home of Peace" is just a little vague, isn't it? --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a computer guy, but, I wouldn't think getting the page view counter to automatically add the counts for the old article name and the new article name together would be all that difficult. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is needlessly difficult, extra work for what gain? Article titles should not be descriptive, please see Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven). A disambiguation is not needed for just two terms, which differ and point at each other. In any case, a MOVE of a page is preferable than creating a dab in place of an article, s. Marktkirche. Some day there will be Marktkirche (disambiguation), not a dab called like a former article. And - as said above - don't just move, but discuss before with those involved. Marktkirche was moved without asking WHILE pictured on the Main page. Now imagine what had happened if the one who moved had created a dab! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As an article TITLE, "Home of Peace" fails at least 3 of the requirements of our naming policy: it is not recognizable, it is not precise and it is not consistent with other cemetery article titles. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see this. 75.60.6.25 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I tried to address your concerns. Please see the talk page and article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity: Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch) Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity Free subscription to our informative newsletter Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve Join today!

--Anupam^Talk 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem! There are also numerous subprojects there you might be interested in checking out! With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What's this??? What ever happened to our standards? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, poor Anupam must be scraping the bottom of the barrel (just ask BusterSeven and Writegeist). (one for each of 'em). --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Gingrich spokesman defends Wikipedia edits" — goethean ॐ 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the article and probably won't read the article, but, why should Joe D defend anything when he hasn't done anything wrong? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For your further amazement, I will be voting for Speaker Gingrich when the Republican primary is held here in the Old Dominion in about a month (if I can figure out how to do a write-in on an electronic voting machine). --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And, if I'm allowed to vote for "any two candidates", I'll write in Gingrich and Santorum! (lol). --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joedesantis&diff=474200049&oldid=473252019 – Jimbo complimented Joedesantis. The media simply want to sensationalize Joedesantis' involvement, just as the media sensationalizes everything. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Right on, Jimbo! Everything I've seen Joe DeSantis do here has been open, above-board and by the rules. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All the same, it is a media matter. This is an issue reported on many news sources. If there's fallout from it or if his opponents make use of these charges, it should be included. 108.16.194.118 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The odds that I will vote for Newt Gingrich are nil, but that is not at all relevant to this issue. Joe DeSantis violated our guidelines (by Wikipedia standards) in the distant past. However, it seems clear that he has been trying to comply with our standards more recently. I won't let my personal political leanings interfere with fairness and the neutral point of view. This media attention is a typical "tempest in a teapot" and a minor one at that, and shows how little effort many in the media are willing to give to our ways of doing things. I regret that my comments on Joe's talk page have been interpreted by some as criticism of him, especially since I began my remarks (left out by CNN and the Daily Beast) by thanking him for openly disclosing his COI. So it goes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Cullen. I don't think anyone blames you that CNN didn't quote you fully. Not your fault. But, did Joe DeSantis in fact violate our COI guideline? Are we talking about removing "third wife" from the lead of the Callista article? --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Facts shouldn't be tampered with or suppressed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Facts about Newt should be in Newt's article, not in Callista's. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My question was What did Joe D do wrong in removing "third wife" from Callista's article, and your response is that he was tampering with or suppressing facts. Well, we'll have to disagree. One man's tampering and suppressing is apparently another man's removing irrelevant (and prejudicial, imho) material. Joe D was right to remove the term. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it's an assumption to take a gander at his motives, but a fact that the edits took place, and are controversial. I would say give the reader the facts and let them decide the motives. King4057 (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Facts about Newt should be in Newt's article, not in Callista's. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a valid point worthy of discussion. The more I think about it, she is his third wife, but (as far as I know), he is not her third husband. These things ought to be talked out and solved by reasonable people, not battled over. That shows how idealistic I am, but I plan to stay that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we're !voting on it right now. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

May 2018

September 2018

October 2018

Yeah. I know. I'm an idiot. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I had to figure it out here first—didn't want to muck up the issue on your page. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the referencing tip. That is very useful to know and makes things clearer. AshLin (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't rub Rjensen's nose in it—I just asked him for a favor! Like I said, I found out about it the hard way -- I spent hours re-doing the refs on an article and then had the policy pointed out to me. All my work went for naught as the person who "owned" the article reverted me (but gently, if that's possible). Good luck! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary! I value his expertise. He brings something, a broader knowledge of the terrain and the ability to critically judge as a professional historian. The referencing style etc is what I call minor issues, garnishing, not really important as the quality of content. AshLin (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

K, can you do me a favor? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try. What do you need? --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you just give up chocolate this Lent like everyone else instead of wikipedia? ;-)

– Lionel ^(talk) 06:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm giving up beer—that's a real penance for me. Sierra Nevada Torpedo! mmmmmmmmmmmmmm! But I hadn't planned on giving up Wikipedia. Is that the favor? --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep!– Lionel ^(talk) 06:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem! --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"I have in my hand a list of 205 Paid Operatives who are subverting Wikipedia, and, destroying our children's future!"

(flashback to a previous incarnation): "Hand me another nail, would ya, Bud?"

"The journey of the soul is one of endless whining & infinite canvassing."

(The Master is queried and the response is Golden Silence.)

"I'm leaving the essay."

(second wind): "I have in my hand a list of 206 Paid Operatives who are subverting Wikipedia...."

or any of several score similar posts by one editor? BTW, please read my user talk page to se exactly why that person is upset <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Collect. We're not communicating on the same wavelength. I need another clue: where exactly was I making the reference you're asking about? --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that Buster has answered my question for you. I haven't reviewed Buster's editing. Is he so disruptive that he needs to be supervised? He still owes me a barnstar for making the most uncivil comment he's seen in 4 years on Wikipedia. (He must not know about OrangeMarlin or Malleus Fatuorum.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello: after your discussion on the Village Pump, I took a look at the external links in the Saint Thyrsus article. As it turns out, neither link actually added any info that wasn't already in the article, so per WP:ELNO I removed them. In addition, the latest stpatrickdc.org link didn't go directly to the Thyrsus section, which I believe was your intention.

As you improve the articles for other saints, you may want to keep an eye out for similar instances of unnecessary external links. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So, how do I write the URL so it goes right to Thyrsus, if #thyr doesn't work any more? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually suggesting that the page isn't appropriate to link to at all. The page contains no additional information about Thyrsus that isn't already in the article. This is addressed in spirit by WP:ELNO criteria #1. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I tend to be an inclusionist in such matters. An EL to a website with literally thousands of saints' biographies hagiographies (with sources) is a benefit to our readers, who perhaps have some interest in that area as they've come to read about San Tirso. I think of it as the "Official page" of many saints. You may very well be right, however, in your understanding of ELNO! --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

here's Buster7 just last week:

I don't want to seem pushy but I can't edit alongside someone that sees me as an assistant at The Crucifiction of Jesus Christ. Thats one of the most incivil things Ive seen here in 4 years. I created WP:Paid Operatives and he is crapping all over it. He even has wiki-friends that come and crap on it. There is no reasoning with him. Please talk to him or tell me where to go. I have a request in at WP:Wikiquette#With Extreme Prejudice but no reaction there either. Ignoring him doesn't work and,attacking him in kind is not an option I even consider. I'dlike to continue working here. But, I can't under these conditions. This is a not-so-cunning attempt to disparage my efforts, to demonize me in the eyes of others. Thanks for your time. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:18, 16 February 2012

Buster was upset with me because we disagree about COI and "Paid Operatives". He seems obsessed with the editing of Joe DeSantis and he started a "Project" (WP:WEaPOn) that looked suspiciously like an attack page. When it was blanked and tagged for speedy deletion, he canvassed 13 of his friends (plus Jimbo Wales) asking for help in getting it untagged, and he asked the same help from Joe DeSantis, of all people! This provoked me to comment: "If BS (BusterSeven) had been a Roman soldier, he would have asked Jesus to hand him the next nail." And that description of Buster's behavior incensed Buster. I share Risker's editing philosophy: "Our readers do not care one whit who adds information to articles; they care only that the information is correct." Just for the record. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC) (Thanks to Writegeist for the correction—there is too much BS on Wikipedia.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace is in the hands (or should I say fingertips) of each one of us. You continue to misinterpret my objectives and, once again, repeat your provoked and provoking comment. In RL, when someone offers a handshake, do you accept or continue to criticize? ```Buster Seven Talk 20:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by my own transfiguration over the past 7 days—I don't feel any different! If this "2-cents worth" thing is your idea of an olive branch, I accept. Your were never my enemy anyway. What I don't see is how an olive branch is going to change your obsession with Joe DeSantis or your misinterpretation of COI. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems really quite disingenuous to note that the page was "blanked and tagged for speedy deletion" without also adding that it was very quickly restored and the tag removed by an uninvolved administrator. Your mileage may vary. Writegeist (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The point here is that BusterSeven started an attack page on Joe DeSantis and then asked Joe DeSantis to help him save it when it was threatened. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Buster's addition of this 2cents thing is goofing up my talk page. I'm figuring it out. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Buster forgot to close the box with a "pipe, curly bracket", so every New section that I added was still inside the box! Neat trick!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Trick? A scheme to desceive? Interesting interpretation. It was a mistake. I make a few every day. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was a mistake. It's also a neat trick to keep up my sleeve for future use on the unsuspecting. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Still don't know what the </div> thing is supposed to do. It doesn't seem to make any difference if it's there or not.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Hey, I just learned how to "nowiki"! Thanks, Buster!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[Comment removed by order of Writegeist.]

"Inclusionist"? No, honestly, you're not. Writegeist (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC) [strikethrough courtesy of Writegeist.]

Whatever you say, Ace! --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[Comment removed by order of Writegeist.]

Whatever you say! --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[Comment removed by order of Writegeist.]

I don't agree with the sentence you quote from the guideline because it's irrational. It says it's OK for me to completely delete your comments on my talk page, but it's not OK to leave them here with a strikethrough? In other words, strikethrough alters the meaning but deletion doesn't? (Strikethrough doesn't alter the meaning anyway, by the way; it's just a comment on the meaning, like any other comment). The bottom line is that on my talk page, guests are expected to behave. In your case, that means not tampering with the way I want my page to look. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[Comment removed by order of Writegeist.]

As it turns out, you were right! I'm not an inclusionist—at least as far as your comments here are concerned. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your disingenuous comments continue to misrepresent mine. I did not "order" you to do anything, and your false claim that I did is yet another breach of the user talk page guidelines, to which you have already been alerted - specifically, in this instance, "Do not misrepresent other people", under Behaviour that is unacceptable. I simply pointed out the choices available to you under the STRIKE guideline, namely either to remove another editor's comments or leave them in situ, but not to strike them. Writegeist (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And I quote: "I have undone your strike of my comments. Either leave unchanged or remove." (emphasis added) Writegeist 05:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Did someone say disingenuous? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking that sentence out of context to support a disingenuous argument is another misrepresentation. My comments set out the relevant section of TPOC, informed you I had undone your edit per that section, and summarized the simple choices open to you under TPOC: leave or remove. The "order", if you want to call it that, was from TPOC; I was the messenger. On the evidence, I doubt this distinction will exercise your mind, which appears resolutely closed to the issues I've raised with you. I think I have been patient and reasonable. Happy editing. Writegeist (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to win friends and influence people by tampering with their talk pages and then trying to bully them into editing their own talk pages the way you want them to is a losing proposition from the get-go. It is bad form, in poor taste, and, frankly, stupid. I'm glad it's over. Good riddance! --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it's inappropriate for advocates of one position to edit the section advocating the other position. In an opinion essay, you should not edit text that's meant to support a position with which you disagree. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I already told Writegeist; don't know if Buster has seen it. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

and we Wont Be Back 'til it's over, over there. (no need to hurry back on our account, old boy!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:R#PLA. When you notice excessive bolding, you can unbold it if there are no such incoming redirects. Conversely, if you see something that makes sense as a synonym, feel free to create such a redirect. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, Joy. That's good to know. (I hate reading "policies" ). --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

...make any further comments at my UTP. I shall show you the same consideration here. Happy editing. Writegeist (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. I thought you were already gone. Of course you're always welcome back, after you learn some manners. (Consideration—what a concept!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Buster has asked that I move my comment on the C. Gingrich Talk out of Joe's comment, which is a legit request. You mind if I move yours also? (Just down to the bottom, and I'll leave a note) The Interior (Talk) 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem! --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was listening to Mark Levin last night and heard him say that in Virginia you can only vote for Romney or Paul in the March 6 primary. It turns out to be true—Virginia law does not permit write-ins on primary election ballots. So, since I cannot vote for my preferred candidate, Newt Gingrich, I have removed the COI notice for myself that I had put on the talk pages of a couple related articles. Sic semper tyrannis, baby! --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was having some fun with B7 and his buddies. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thank you, Br. Lionel. That was deeelicious—if only in my dreams (gosh I'm hungry!). Should I accuse Grondemar of being anti-papist since you're giving these out during Lent? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Kenatipo, as I explained to Lionelt, the Liberty Film Festival really has nothing whatsoever to do with the Motion Picture Alliance, an organization that stems from the 1940s and 1950s that wasn't even a film festival. In fact, the Liberty Film Festival once explicitly held an event denouncing the original Hollywood blacklist and the Motion Picture Alliance's role in it - so it's sort of perverse to associate the Liberty Film Festival with the Alliance. Nor does the Liberty Film Festival have anything to do with Friends of Abe, which is a minor dinner group. User: Thorpe 79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorpe79 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thorpe. I copied your comment to, and responded at, the Liberty Film Festival talk page. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I just want to thank you for all your helpful edits on the Sanford police department investigation of Trayvon Martin. :) Nothing makes me happier than to come back and see the page even better than when I left it. Thank you so much for it. You're part of what makes WP awesome. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Hector, for your kind words. I'm not sure about the future of the article (these dang deletionists are everywhere, aren't they?). --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'M NOT A DELETIONIST! In fact, I used to have an "inclusionist" userbox on my page and took it off for reasons I can't recall - but I didn't change my stripes. I just thought that article - at the time I looked at it - was a fork that wasn't needed yet. But I've repented. Tvoz/talk 03:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that clarification, Tvoz, and I'll try to keep it in mind as a point in your favor the next time you get on my nerves! . --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

RE your edit — I found a ref very easily by googling trayvon martin magistrate virginia. Did you try googling before you deleted? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Virginia" part was a detail that I shouldn't have added in the first place—it's not that relevant, and, folks can kind of surmise it from the fact that George was born in VA and lived in Manassas until about 2003. But I don't have a problem with you re-adding it and sourcing it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(Much more relevant is the fact that George is a registered Democrat. Add that to the article, if you can!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I found it quite relevant. When I was reading the article before, I thought that he was a magistrate in Florida and thus may have used his influence in the case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. What's the relevance of him being a democrat? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

May I ask exactly what in the article made you think Robert Senior was a magistrate in Florida? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Because they lived in Florida. I was just looking at it with the eyes of an ordinary reader. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The article changes constantly. I'm talking about the version that said George was born in VA and lived in Manassas for 20 years. If that background is no longer in the article, then saying the father was a magistrate in VA is more relevant. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Democrats are the party of peace, love and understanding. A registered Democrat couldn't possibly commit a cold-blooded race murder—only Republicans and especially Tea Partiers do that sort of thing (when they're not busy pushing Grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair). . It may be relevant because it contradicts the assumptions of the Sharpton-Jackson-MainStreamMedia lynch mob. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL! One could spin it all sorts of ways, like the wheels of grandma's wheelchair. Take it easy. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry l got sidetracked because I thought your grandma remark was very humorous.

I think that his party registration is an obscure fact and is not relevant because there is no indication of the strength of his beliefs in that regard. Was that fact only brought up by a few obscure websites or was there a more substantial source? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm curious if you think that I am on one side or the other of this controversy and which one you think it is. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE:I noticed that someone added "Democrat". After checking the refs there, it looks acceptable. But then it was removed. I think I'll go see what's going on. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the discussions, I looked again at the two sources, and there didn't seem to be any connection between him being a Democrat and the incident. The sources just said that he was a democrat and didn't say he had any strong beliefs about being a democrat. I think the following from one of the sources is the main point.

"Liberal and African-American politicians, activists and political observers from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to President Barack Obama himself have spoken from the gut about their belief that there were racial undertones to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. The fact that Zimmerman is a Democrat eats away at the foundation for the next step in many of their thought processes, which is that Zimmerman was motivated by right-wing beliefs."

Even in this source, they are talking about the "next step", not anything that has happened. So I don't think "Democrat" is relevant, but if you have a good argument to the contrary, I'd be interested. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Bob. I haven't put you in any particular pigeonhole. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kenatipo. I’ve taken on an assignment to help McKinsey & Company improve their Wikipedia article following COI best practices. Much of the content is highly controversial and so will require an abnormally high degree of help from impartial volunteers. Knowing you're experienced working with COIs, I thought you might be interested in helping out. This is where I'm at right now. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Golden Wiki Award You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.33 (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(This is like the grace of God—completely unmerited—but, I'll take it anyway!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What office is Angela Corey running for? I just heard the beginning of her press conference. She said she's seeking "justice for Trayvon" and went out of her way to mention his parents. She asked for prayers for the Martin family, but not for George Zimmerman and his family. Is justice supposed to take sides so obviously? That Justice wears a blindfold apparently can be interpreted in more than one way. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too harsh. I just wonder what evidence she has that leads her to believe that George Z's act was "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent". --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Think Mike Nifong in a dress! --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You asked on my page, "... Is there any evidence that GZ followed TM after the dispatcher's request that he not do so?..."

The short answer is... not in the public record, that I am aware of, but: The only following on record is the brief stretch between Z exiting his vehicle and the dipatcher's comment (a CYA, not any form of request). But this wouldn't have taken him even to the "T". If he'd reached he "T" TM would probably have been visible again. Since the shooting scene is just south of the "T" it seems to me GZ must have proceeded after TM, either unhurredly (no running sounds) after the "don't need to do that" or after hanging up. I understand he gave a walkthrough, complete with demonstration screaming, recorded by the police the next day. Andyvphil (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Noticed your "Media Lies" sandbox. How about that GZ was told to stop following TM and told to meet the arriving cops instead? It's not true, most clearly demonstrated by the dispatcher saying it would be pefectly ok for the officers to call him by phone when they arrived, placing no restrictions whatsoever on what GZ did meanwhile. Also all the "pursued" and other misleading verbs? (And how about "Prosecution Lies".) Andyvphil (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Andyvphil! Changing your position so you can keep an eye on a possible perpetrator (so you can tell the SPD where he is when they arrive) is not "following" the suspected person, imho. Thank you for posting the conversation between O'Mara and Gilbreth during the bond hearing. I went and read the CNN transcripts, incomplete as they are. I'm impressed with O'Mara; he knows what questions to ask. But, it just blows my mind that the prosecutors didn't bother to get GZ's medical records after the shooting. Unbelievable! Alan Dershowitz is right about Angela Corey and her unethical affidavit. I hope George Z doesn't feel so guilty about shooting Trayvon (and there are reports that he feels very badly about it) that he accepts a manslaughter sentence as expiation. I need to update my sandbox to include the lies in the affidavit: the slimy use of the word "profiling", that GZ followed TM, that GZ "confronted" TM; etc., all without a shred of evidence! --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice touches you added. How did you like the ogg I put in? – Lionel ^(talk) 17:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The ogg is an important addition to the article, Br. Lionel—good work, as usual! --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

hv bn noticed @ Yahoo News: LINK (in a bar graph showing the monikers of the users with the most edits during the U.S. Pres. Primaries so far to the Wiki blp pertaining to a Republican party candidate).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Hodgdon. Hope they don't get confused when they click on my username and it takes them to a page that says "This page has been deleted." --Kenatipo ^speak! 13:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Then why not redirect it to your talkpage? – Lionel ^(talk) 04:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Br. Lionel, but it isn't important to me. I guess I'm just not ready for my 15 minutes of "fame". --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you working on B'more related articles. Do you have an interest in that region? I'm working on an article related to the city is the reason for my question. Thanks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My curiosity is catholic, Fasttimes68. The Baltimore tangent started when I found there was no article on the Babe Ruth League. Along the way I discovered that our article on the Sports Legends Museum at Camden Yards had the wrong title, so I moved it and fixed a couple related wikilinks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh the places you will go. Fasttimes68 (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(Poor Fasttimes. One minute he's here, the next minute he's booted into the Great Beyond by an Admin with just a cryptic message for an explanation. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for the copyedit. I don't know where to find those missing pages - it doesn't seem that they are available online. Try through a library perhaps?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Maunus. If I did anything there you don't like, feel free to revert, of course. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please use {{db-r3}} (Implausible typos) see Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions#Redirects or wp:proposed deletion instead. Just blanking it will leave the page in place. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Jim1138 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me again. I just get irritated when a wikilink leads me to an article that is not about the subject. I'll try to start an article about Urban so we can kill the stupid redirect. Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I {{db-r3}}ed the link. If reasonable, please follow policy so others don't need to clean up the mess. Thank Jim1138 (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit was incorrectly marked as minor, in violation of WP:MINOR. In specific, you made a significant, controversial change. Please read the linked policy and try to follow it more closely in the future. But if I see an ongoing pattern of errors, I will have to consider it as evidence of intentional abuse. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. A minor edit is one that does not alter the meaning of the sentence being edited, and, my edit did not alter the meaning of that sentence. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT!!!!) On reconsideration, you are correct. I should not have marked it as "m". Still, a clown like PK who has an NYT column doesn't need Wikipedia advertising for him. My edit was a correction required by some version of WP:PEACOCK. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I told you to read the policy. It says:

A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m).

Removing the fact that Krugman won a Nobel prize is a modification of content, so it's not minor.

This is really obvious, so I'm not going to argue with you about this. Instead, if you make a habit out of violating WP:MINOR, I will simply report you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Calling Paul Krugman a "clown who has an NYT column" shows an extreme lack of neutrality on your part, to the point where you've drifted out of contact with reality. You can disagree with him if you like, but you can't pretend that he's not an expert on the subject of economics; the Nobel prize is a pretty clear sign. Removing this clear sign to make him look like some clown was clearly your POV motive, despite what you said about WP:PEACKOCK. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to keep running off at the mouth—I run an inclusionist talkpage here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you don't dispute what I said, I'm done here. I am needed elsewhere. (whoosh!!!) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This series of edits was incorrectly marked as minor. Please see WP:MINOR's very short list of appropriate uses. Note that I do not particularly object to the edits themselves; I might have phrased some parts a little differently but they were an improvement on the whole. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor,". Which of those edits affects the meaning of the article, pray tell? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read WP:MINOR, you'll find that correcting errors counts as Minor but copyediting to improve what's not actually broken is not mentioned. Since even small changes can affect the tone and neutrality of an article, it's best to reserve the Minor flag for cases which are more open-and-shut. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, StillWhining—as my edits don't affect the meaning of the article, they must be minor edits. I accept your apology. Thank you. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

See, I've delivered my message and I was ready to just walk away, but you couldn't resist a personal attack, eh? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You started it with your bogus claim that those five edits are not minor. I stand by my interpretation: if an edit doesn't alter the meaning, it's minor. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTHING I did FORCED you to personally attack me. I strongly suggest that you redact your insult immediately. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And I strongly suggest that you go soak your head! --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you really want to double-down on the personal attacks? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I've accepted your apology. Now go away. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 02:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(Brother Sir Lionel, where do these people come from?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kenatipo - Would you join us at Talk:Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund regarding Ben Smith's statements re Obama? I'd welcome your opinion and any suggestions there. I had already cut the statement as a compromise, and if you are still not happy with it, I'd definitely like to find something that satisfies everyone. Thanks! guanxi (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you know that I dropped your name in passing at WP:AN3. Nothing to worry about, but I think I'm supposed to notify you. Have a lovely day. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Adjwilley. I just read your summary there and it looks to me like you've done a good job of sorting things out. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed your remarks. They're way, way out of line. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just answer the question: are you now, or have you ever been, a sock-puppet? (and don't lie, because I have here in my hand a list of all 286 of your previous identities) . --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Again K your humor is spot on. Feel free to ignore this frivolous warning. I for a fact know that this user has operated THREE accounts of which StillStanding-247 is the latest. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 00:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. Were these alleged "accounts" used contrary to policy? Why haven't you filed a RFCU? This isn't going to be like another one of your false 3RR reports, is it Lionel? I expect an evil genius like yourself to have some standards. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, presumably, he's pretending that editing without an account counts as an account and that changing my name counts as yet another. It doesn't actually make any sense, but what can you do? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't presume to think like an evil genius. If this continued breach of the Evil Genius Union Local 666 continues, there will be hell to pay. That's right, Lionel. Since unions are "evil" according to you, then it makes sense that evil genii are unionized. In case anyone wondered why Lionel said he was a democrat, here's the proof. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes about as much sense as anything else does. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, StandingStill; you're a policy expert; can you list for us all the policies Viriditas violated by trying to MfD Sir Lionel's essay? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any, but I'm sure you have some in mind. Since the MfD failed, I'm not quite sure what the point of you bringing it up is, though. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kenatipo, are you claiming it is a violation of policy to make a Xfd nomination? Please explain. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm claiming that your motivation for that MfD was pure liberal partisanship, because YOUDIDNTLIKEIT. I also know that pointing this out to you is a total waste of breath. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's funny, Kenatipo, because my motivation was to put an end to partisanship, not to contribute to it. I thought I made that very clear in my MfD statement. Question: what are you doing to end partisanship, Kenatipo? I'm at least trying to do something about it. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion below that conservatives confine their edits to conservative people and organizations and liberals edit liberal people and orgs would be a step in the right direction. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So, basically, you're just violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Why? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically, you and Viriditas don't fool anybody. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't aware that any fooling was being attempted. You seem to know so much about us and our motives, often more than we know about ourselves and each other! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain you to yourselves: you are liberals pushing a liberal POV. You may be unaware of the POV you promote. It's a common condition here. Some of us watching your editing behavior recognize what you're doing and are not "fooled". It's not a question of deception on your part, necessarily. Your unconscious may be "fooling" you. We all have blind spots; it's human nature. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's entirely possible to have a bias, to be aware of that bias, and to therefore edit neutrally. I'm not sure that this is the case with you, based on your comment about shoveling. Frankly, it made it sound as if you're aware of your bias, embrace it and let it guide you. If so, this would not be inconsistent with your behavior as I've seen it. So prove me wrong: tell me you're going to edit neutrally and then do it. Consider this a challenge. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear I'm StillLecturing (24/7), I know which side of the culture war I'm on — I don't exactly make a secret of it. I don't have to prove anything to you. What people say on Talk pages is mostly just talk. If I make an edit in article space that you don't like, then revert it. It's that simple. I have a challenge for you — examine your own bias and how it affects your edits, first. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battlefield in your culture war. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kenatipo, why must there be a culture war here? "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" Aren't you contributing to a "war" simply by recognizing it? Most people are not conservative or liberal, they are in the center. This kind of polarizing discourse is unique to a very small minority on this planet. Is it unfair for us to ask those who are willing to go to war over such things to put down their arms so the rest of us can live in peace? More to the point, do you have any right to carry your culture war over to this encyclopedia? Isn't that what places like Conservapedia are for? Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of my answer is in "August 2012" below. Like I told "Standing", What people say on Talk pages is mostly just talk. If I make an edit in article space that you don't like, then revert it. It's that simple. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that the only sign of appreciation I've ever given you is a $1.50 fish sandwich, hahaha!!! Maybe I held it against you when when you took a wikibreak for Lent 2 years ago, hahaha! Seriously you are one of the best editors this place has and I'm proud to count you as a friend. Pax tecum, brother. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 00:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded for your tremendous sense of humor which I first noticed during the BelloWello affair. I can always count on you to put a smile on my face, or causing me to laugh so hard I fall out of my chair! – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 00:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Et cum spiritu tuo, Brother Sir Lionel. Thanks! Gratias agimus tibi.

(how do you say "shoveling shit against the liberal tide, one teaspoonful at a time" in Latin?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Guess I should have written it in Latin! --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be one teabagful? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

depends on which time you consider, saying "at a time", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

At any given time. Does that help? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Aloha. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a battlefield where conservatives slay liberals and fight wars over articles as you implied in this diff. Please remember why we are here and why we are not. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is as natural to liberals as breathing. Congrats on your failed MfD, Vd. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have to say that he has a point here. It looks like a very obvious case of WP:BATTLEFIELD. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kenatipo, please refer to me as your fellow editor, not as VD, nor as a "liberal" in future communication. Am I to understand, Kenatipo, that your reply indicates that you believe the Xfd process is a means of waging an ideological battle against your opponent? I ask because that is what your response implies. As a matter of fact, I don't see the aforementioned MfD as a "failure" but rather as a success. The community weighed in and made a decision without vacillating or beating around the bush. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Did I mention that blindness to their own hypocrisy is a common affliction of liberals? Viriditas, my dear fellow , your attempt at making Sir Lionel's essay disappear exemplifies a battlefield mentality. Even StillHere agrees with me! See failed MfD here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Insulting liberals as being blind to their own hypocrisy is an overwhelmingly partisan statement. Do you set aside this political partisanship when you edit? Do you recognize it as uncivil? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is simple: Viriditas is being hypocritical by coming to my talk page and lecturing me about "battlefield mentality" when she clearly has a "battlefield mentality" herself. It is also quite possible that she is oblivious to her own condition. (I've seen this phenomenon often here, even in admins. "Reality has a liberal bias", don't you know.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So, in addition to launching a barrage of pejoratives such as "liberal" and "hypocrite", you've basically admitted to engaging in battlefield tactics. I appreciate your honesty. As a token, of my appreciation, I would like to ask you how I can improve my relationship with members of WikiProject Conservatism. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with your relationship with WPConservatism? Everyone I talk to thinks you're peachy.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 08:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kenatipo made a valid point that my Mfd nomination (etc.) could be perceived as battleground-y. I'm trying to figure out how to interact with your project in a more peaceful manner. Any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, "my project" has been on life support for months. Ironically it reached its pinnacle of success during the MFD 10 mos. ago. Contrary to Still's feelings of persecution, WPConservatism doesn't have the means to orchestrate a vendetta against him or anyone else. Is it "my project" with which you seek more peaceful interactions? Or is it the 20 or so non-members who are active at political articles? (what you call fellow travelers). Sir Lionel, EG. 12:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that membership matters, really. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a member of WPConservatism, but if I had to make a new rule for Wikipedia, it would somehow encourage liberal editors to confine themselves to improving articles about liberal people and organizations and conservative editors would likewise confine themselves to conservative people and organizations. In other words, don't edit articles about people or organizations you have an animus toward. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations: you've reinvented Conservapedia! It's what happens when conservatives are allowed to own articles.

As for WikiProject Conservatism, formal membership doesn't really matter. You count as a fellow traveler, if not a follower. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You took the words out of my mouth. Kenatipo's "rule" was implemented and resulted in Conservapedia, a "parody" of an encyclopedia. We don't do hagiographies, Kenatipo. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with political BLPs is that partisans on both sides don't have a correct idea in their heads of what a good encyclopedia article about a politician looks like. Their animus toward the subject in the opposite camp makes them try to add negative information about the person just because it appeared in a "reliable source". This results in articles containing information that only belongs in the National Enquirer. Sometimes I look at Britannica articles for a guide. Did you know that the EB article on Newt Gingrich doesn't even mention Callista? And that Callista doesn't even have an article? What does that tell you? You say we don't do hagiographies? I haven't looked at the Obama article lately, but in the early days it was pretty much a "hagiography". So what? You won't find me there trying to add that his mentor "Frank" was a card-carrying Communist and on the FBI's watchlist, however relevant that might be to explaining Obama's world-view. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To continue our discussion here: I have to say that this paranoia about Big Government seems cynically opportunistic. Did you take to the streets during the Bush Years, when the government expanded massively and acquired a wide range of abilities to furtively monitor its citizens and to imprison them without evidence, charges, or legal access, all the while exploding the federal deficit? Of course not. But you think Obama is Stalin Lite because he wants everyone to purchase health insurance? It seems to me that these concerns about the size, cost, and reach of the federal government sprang up out of nowhere on January 20, 2009, which makes it hard to them seriously as anything except a partisan cop-out from having a serious discussion about public policy.

And as for your comments about tax burden in the U.S., you're simply incorrect. Tax, as a percentage of income, often goes down substantially for the very wealthy. Look at Romney, whose earnings came almost entirely from capital gains - he paid a lower tax rate than many Americans who earned far less, simply because they made the mistake of earning their money by working. Seriously, Romney paid a lower tax rate than I did when I was cash-strapped and trying to pay off my student loans. I'm fortunate enough to make a lot more now, and I can tell you that my tax rate has gone down - drastically - as I've made more money, largely because my income over ~$90,000 isn't liable to Social Security taxes. As I've earned more, I've come to appreciate the myriad of ways in which our tax code favors the wealthy. MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do people continue to believe this myth that your taxes go down as you make more money. The marginal, or effective tax rate, goes up as your income goes up. There are some people that have income almost solely from capital gains undewr which this is not always true, but unless you are in that group, I can assure you that your marginal tax rate has gone up as well. Arzel (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, you know as well as I do that fiscal conservatives were unhappy with No Child Left Behind, the Medicare Part D drug prescription plan, TARP, etc., etc., way before Obama's inauguration.

And regarding your effective tax rate, I'm sure that you voluntarily donated what you thought was "your fair share" to the Federal Treasury, in excess of what was strictly required by the IRS code, because you were so eager to "give something back" for all the infrastructure paid for by taxpayers who preceded you. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as Obama's political future is concerned, his ideology and how he acquired it is irrelevant — he will not be re-elected because his policies have failed. We are not better off than we were four years ago. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean "fiscal conservatives" like Paul Ryan, who voted for every single one of those programs? Somehow, "fiscal conservatives" managed to hide their unhappiness quite effectively during the Bush years, only to suddenly rediscover their principles when Obama took office.

I think it's a toss-up whether Obama will be re-elected. All things being equal, he probably has the advantage - he's a much more effective politician and campaigner than Romney, who at best inspires people to hold their noses and vote for him because they dislike Obama. The wildcard is the voter-ID efforts, which it appears will effectively disenfranchise several million legal voters who would disproportionately favor Obama.

I'm not sure how fair it is to call Obama's policies a "failure" across the board. Some of his policies have been extraordinarily effective - for example, the auto bailout (pass over unanimous Republican objections). His foreign policy has been fairly effective - he played the Libya situation nicely, getting rid of Qaddafi without a Bush-like decade-long quagmire or, for that matter, a single U.S. casualty. The decision to OK the bin Laden raid was leadership at the highest level - he took responsibility for a massive political risk and, thanks to the competence of all involved, it worked out. He passed healthcare reform - which has eluded every President in the modern era - and it's not going away.

Balanced against that, the economy certainly isn't doing as well as one would hope. Whether that's because of Obama's "failed" policies, or an across-the-board strategy of knee-jerk obstructionism on the part of the Republican Congress, or a little of both depends on one's viewpoint, I suppose. But even conceding that Obama's economic policies have "failed", there's absolutely no evidence that Romney has any better ideas. For the most part, he hasn't outlined anything specific that he'd do differently, and insofar as he has an economic policy, it's essentially Bush 2.0: tax cuts for the rich, spending cuts for the poor, and watch the magic happen. Oh, and he'd try to repeal Obamacare, which aside from being virtually impossible at this point would increase the deficit massively.

Arzel, your effective tax rate doesn't necessarily go up as you earn more money. Why do you think Romney paid 13% in taxes, when people who make far less pay a far higher percentage? Your Social Security taxes are capped and only apply to the first ~$100,000 of income - beyond that, you get a tax break by not having to pay Social Security taxes. Income from capital gains - which is restricted to the wealthy, for the most part - is virtually tax-free, so as you have more money, you can shift it into tax-sheltered vehicles and decrease your overall tax burden. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney's HHS Secretary will continue the implementation of Obamacare about as enthusiastically as Eric Holder's Justice Department is pursuing the New Black Panthers and responding to Rep. Issa on Fast & Furious. The HHS rules that violate religious conscience freedoms will be undone on day one of the Romney Administration. Obamacare was sold to the country on the premise that it bends the cost curve down. Of course it does no such thing, and in fact, now will cost twice as much as first advertised. If American voters re-elect Obama, then we probably deserve everything he will do to this country during his second term. I agree that Romney is not the ideal candidate, but, at this point anyone would be better than Obama.

Please tell us, MastCell, the amount of the donation you made to the US Treasury over and above the legal minimum per the IRS code because you've been so inspired by Obama's rhetoric about "giving something back" and the echoes of Kennedy's inaugural address. (Or are you, like most tax-and-spend liberals, only generous with other people's money?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Obamacare was "sold" on the premises that it would extend coverage to many of the 40+ million uninsured while reducing the budget deficit, both of which appear to be valid premises. I'm not sure it's relevant how I spend my discretionary income - it sounds more like a classic ad hominem attack to avoid dealing with the substance of what I'm saying. For the record, though, I give to the amount I think I should be paying in taxes (and then some) to a range of charitable and political causes that I support. To be clear, "charitable donations" to the IRS wouldn't really help - the government can't rely on such donations, and it can't budget for them. It needs to set a tax policy that will actually pay its bills, and follow through. It's really not OK to continually ask the poorest and most vulnerable citizens of this country to sacrifice and bear the brunt of spending cuts while we don't ask the wealthy to give up a dime, but that's the basis of Republican economic policy. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that you realize that you, MastCell, are the best judge of how to spend your hard-earned money, not the government. This country doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a SPENDING problem, which Obama has exacerbated to a dangerous level. The most vulnerable here are the unborn. (And like the prospective immigrant from Mumbai said when asked why he wanted to come to America: "I want to live in a country where the poor people are FAT". ) --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, MastCell has been entirely correct all the way through. It's not a matter of "your" money, but of how we can invest in our infrastructure so that we all have more wealth. The alternative -- the Romney plan -- is to allow the wealth to be further concentrated until we are all impoverished. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Standing, when you say things like that, I wonder if you don't have SFB. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What's SFB? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd ask me that! Isn't there some urban dictionary you can consult? Here's a hint: if you have SFB, you're SOL. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It stands for "shit for brains". And this sort of rhetorical dishonesty is exactly what most people, including me, hate about political discourse. I didn't say that I was the best judge of how to spend my money - I said that it doesn't make sense to make charitable contributions to the IRS, because it's not organized to handle them. Within a rational tax code, I'd be comfortable giving more money to the IRS and letting the government decide how to spend it. After all, the main reason we have elections is so that we can guide how the government spends our money.

I'm afraid I don't agree that our national finances can be boiled down to a "spending problem". I've seen the amount we spend to help the poor and vulnerable decrease dramatically over the past 20 years, while the amount that the wealthy are asked to contribute has shrunk to previously unheard-of levels. Our basic national economic policy for the past 20 years has been to stick it to the most vulnerable people in the country (who don't vote in large numbers anyway) in order to avoid having to ask the wealthy to make the slightest sacrifice. To the extent we have a spending problem, it can't be addressed without tackling the military budget - which would take the sort of political courage that exactly zero Republicans (least of all Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney) seem to possess. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

" ... it doesn't make sense to make charitable contributions to the IRS, because it's not organized to handle them."^{[citation needed]}.

It doesn't matter if you're the best judge of how to spend your money. The point is: it's your money to use as you see fit, wisely or not. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Kenatipo, virtually every expert says we have a revenue problem because the wealthiest Americans are not paying their fair share, the same people who control most of the wealth. And as the aging and decaying infrastructure falls down around us, you want to cut spending? There's more than enough jobs to go around if we invest in building new green electric grids, upgrading our towns and cities, and helping working Americans get back on their feet. We bailed out Wall Street when they gambled our money away and we owe our current economic recession to eight years of Bush and conservative policies. In the last four years, conservatives have fought tooth and nail against this president, because they have put their own personal greed above and beyond their own nation. And you want to elect the same people who destroyed this country? Sorry, but no. Wall Street got bailed out and now it's time to help working Americans. I keep forgetting who our enemy is. Is it terrorists or Republicans? They both seem intent on taking us back to the 9th century. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Aloha! Viriditas, you are correct: "liberal" does not adequately describe your state of mind. This class warfare tactic is an un-American bunch of crap. What exactly is their "fair share"? I heard that even if you taxed "the wealthy" at 100% of their income, it wouldn't make a dent in what Obama has spent. I personally don't believe in a conspiracy of billionaires and millionaires. I also heard that a whopping 6% of the stimulus money went to rebuild infrastructure. Don't you just love government efficiency? Do we really need Obama investing in more Solyndra's? Obama's policies damaged the recovery. When he and his anti-business policies are gone, the economy will recover, and all our boats will rise. Wall Street was bailed out because the Treasury Secretary and the head of the Federal Reserve told W. Bush that if he didn't do something the entire US economy would collapse. What would you have done in his place? And how would you have voted on the bailout if you were Paul Ryan? Vote no and wreck the US economy or vote yes and stand by your fiscal conservative principles? Poor Paul Ryan — if he votes no per his principles he's an extremist ideologue who "destroyed the country", if he votes yes he's a hypocrite, phony and flip-flopper. The "enemy" here is the thinking that says we can continue spending more than we're taking in. We're headed toward the cliff and Obama wants to put the gas pedal to the floor. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Class warfare" is sort of an interesting concept, although I get that you were just using it as a catch-phrase. Republican economic policy is based on demanding greater and greater sacrifices from the poor and vulnerable, in order to ensure that we don't have to ask the wealthy to contribute a single additional cent. Isn't that "class warfare"?

I don't think any serious person believes in a "conspiracy of millionaires and billionaires". But people follow their own rational self-interest (if I can appeal to the Ayn Rand fanboy lurking inside every conservative). For millionaires and billionaires, their immediate self-interest is to keep their money and forget everyone else. Government exists in order to balance the self-interests of the powerful and wealthy with those of the less powerful. That idea is as old as government itself, as old as the first extant code of laws, which explicitly says that government exists "so that the strong should not harm the weak." That's not "class warfare" - it's the basic role of government. People have understood that for 6,000 years, although we seem to be trying to forget it in the last two.

I'm sort of speechless at your take on Paul Ryan's conundrum. You think his choice boiled down to a) vote no on the stimulus and wreck the economy, or b) vote yes on the stimulus and betray his principles. Really - follow your logic just one or two steps further. Paul Ryan had a secret option c): recognize that his principles were wrong and harmful, and if followed would have led the country off an even sharper cliff. Really - if following your principles will wreck the economy, then someone with critical-thinking faculties might start to wonder about the validity of their principles. I'm glad Ryan lacks political courage and caved in to the Bush Administration's pressure to vote for TARP, but he doesn't seem to have bothered with any sort of introspection. At least Alan Greenspan had the decency to admit that everything he'd preached and believed in for the past 40 years was misguided and harmful. That took courage. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If our national economic policy has been, as you claim, to rob from the poor to give to the rich, for the past 20 years, then why didn't Obama reverse that policy when the Democrats had control of the executive and legislative branches for 2 years? "Class warfare" is only one of the negative campaign tactics that the Divider-in-Chief is using — he surely can't run on his record. We overlooked option d) for Paul Ryan: just vote "present" and when asked why, say "that decision is above my pay grade". Political courage indeed.

That government exists "so that the strong should not harm the weak" has been forgotten about 50,000,000 times in the US since January 22, 1973. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Obama didn't reverse those economic policies because he's a fiscal conservative. In fact, he's got a much more serious claim to that title than Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, or Mitch McConnell. Obama is the only who's made at least a token effort to actually pay for his pet policies (the foremost example being "Obamacare", which is projected to lower the budget deficit substantially).

In contrast, look at the Republicans' record as "fiscal conservatives". Obviously, from 2000 through 2008 the Republicans were about as far from "fiscal conservatism" as a party can get. Paul Ryan voted for the Bush tax cuts, even though they weren't offset by any spending reductions - thus contributing substantially to the deficit. Is that fiscal conservatism? What was his excuse for abandoning his principles in that case, when we weren't facing a world financial meltdown?

But we're pretending those years didn't happen or don't count, so let's move on. Even after Obama took office, to the extent that Republicans have put forth concrete budget proposals, they haven't established any sort of fiscal conservatism. Jim DeMint's plan - supported by virtually every Republican Senator - would have cost $3 trillion over the next 10 years (in tax cuts for the rich), none of which was paid for in any way, shape, or form (). Paul Ryan didn't include a single specific revenue offset for the tax cuts in his budget plan (he told us to "assume" that his tax cuts will be revenue-neutral, but has declined to describe how he's going to offset them ). Is that fiscal conservatism? MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Now we're getting somewhere." Uh, no. This chat is drawing to a very rapid close. I don't live in the same reality as someone who believes that Obama is a fiscal conservative. That's where I stopped reading and I won't read any more. Hope you're feeling all right. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Except in reality many of the people you enjoy labeling as "liberals" are in fact, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Black and white thinking isn't helpful here. Most of the electorate are in the center, meaning that they hold some liberal and some conservative positions. Obama, having been elected president by these centrists, perfectly mirrors the will of the people. Is any of this making sense yet? The problem, of course, is that conservative extremists have ejected the Republican centrists, and these extremists do not represent the will of the people but the 1%. These extremists have attempted to redefine common words and phrases to reflect their extreme beliefs and promote their failed policies. Examples like Todd Akin aren't outliers, they represent how out of touch conservative extremists are with reality and how far they are willing to go to recreate a fantasy world that they demand others inhabit. If Washington were Wikipedia, we would block them for disruption. There's a huge number of important issues facing the US, none of which have anything to do with abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, or any number of the distractions conservatives keep throwing at us to avoid talking about actual problems that real working Americans face every day. The Republicans are out of ideas, we get it. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So, SFB is contagious after all. Way to go, StandingStill. (If this weren't my own Talk page, I'd be out of here! ) --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious, how do you defend conservative leaders like David Barton, who are actively trying to rewrite reality? I'll accept medical explanations. Perhaps conservatives are suffering from some kind of brain disease that makes them incapable of honesty. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Brain disease sure explains fiscal conservative Barack Obama's behavior all right. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean, like Bush funding two wars he had no intention of ever paying for? That kind of fiscal conservatism? According to the Republicans, it's OK to fund wars and invest money overseas, but you just try to help average Americans afford a checkup at the doctor and suddenly it's not OK. This is the pattern with conservatives who say they are "pro-life": 1) killing people in warfare is OK; 2) healing people at home is not. WWJD? Please, stop calling yourself conservative Christians. It's an insult to Christ and to Christianity, two things conservatives know nothing about. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

@Kenatipo: Well, what does "fiscal conservative" mean to you? To me, a fiscal conservative is someone who makes sure he can pay for the government he's proposing. By that measure, the Republicans fail miserably from the Bush years through the present day. Obama doesn't exactly succeed either, but he's at least making an effort, and he's leaps and bounds ahead of where the GOP is in terms of fiscal sanity and conservatism. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Q. What do you call Occupy Wall St. protesters at the Democratic National Convention? A. Delegates.

• "Barack Obama is the first president to create more excuses than jobs."

• "Barack Obama is a fiscal conservative."

You never answered my question above: what do the words "fiscal conservative" mean to you? If a politician supports massive tax cuts or a pre-emptive war without specifying how they'll be paid for, are they "fiscally conservative"? Conversely, if a politician's health-care reform proposal includes a detailed and independently vetted approach to not only cover its cost, but actually reduce the budget deficit, is that "fiscally conservative"? MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Conservative" used to mean "thrifty, cautious, measured", etc. The term has been hijacked by the teabaggers. Well, the GOP caused this monstrous debt crisis, so if they win, they can try to fix what they caused. That should work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed your editing privilege temporarily. Edit summaries like this are not acceptable here. If you decide to return, please don't repeat this.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--John (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)