Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kendrick7: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:22, 19 October 2017 editChampion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,562 edits Notification: listing at redirects for discussion of U. S. security. (TW)← Previous edit Revision as of 20:11, 3 December 2017 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,142,123 edits ArbCom 2017 election voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage deliveryNext edit →
Line 102: Line 102:
] ]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''U. S. security'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 23:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC) An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''U. S. security'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 23:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Kendrick7. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/06&oldid=813406902 -->

Revision as of 20:11, 3 December 2017

This editor is a Tutnum of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, and Chewed Broken Pencil.
Archive

Archive


0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Nomination of Ayman Taha (American soldier) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ayman Taha (American soldier) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ayman Taha (American soldier) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Humayun Khan

Why did you create Humayun Khan (soldier)? The subject fails WP:MILPEOPLE and all the coverage is about this DNC argument, so WP:BLP1E applies. I'd like to hear your explanation before I take it to AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, now. I created the bio before it became a full-on political football, with simply the WP:GNG in mind (or as the first sentence of WP:MILPEOPLE explains "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources.") That was good enough for me.
I don't believe that the subsequent passing back and forth of the ball between the Trump and Clinton campaigns would make his bio any less notable.
Furthermore, I would suggest that the ensuing controversy might best be split off into it's own article, but... frankly, I did something similar with Mitt Romney's tax returns back in 2012, but then that article got deleted, and when I tried to undo my split, I got indef blocked by @Timotheus Canens for ~5 months until I finally convinced @Beeblebrox: to give me another chance.
As such, my learned advice to you, per WP:TIND, is to just ride this out until after the election; 20 weeks is short and the arc of WP:5P is long. August is a slow news month in any year, which makes it during a Presidential election year High Holy Silly Season.
Still, if you really want to turn this into a Wikipedian political football too, just send it to AfD. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. It'll only bring out the worse in all of us. -- Kendrick7 23:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The claim "I created the bio before it became a full-on political football" isn't so. The sources (and the stub you created) are based on coverage solely because the Khan family's appearance at the DNC. None of that coverage was ever about CPT Khan, himself, independent of the hubub and you know that. Now to say that I dare not send it to AfD because of the ensuing furor is disappointing from a ten year editor. It would appear you get joy out of creating these stubs about people and things that aren't really notable. In the future, please be more careful. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I've used slightly the wrong metaphor, but football is a sport that requires two teams playing. I honestly didn't expect Khizr and Ghazala Khan to end up much more than a footnote to the DNC 2016 article due to being Chelsea Clinton's opening act; now they have their own article.
You're correct that if I have two and a half reliable sources about someone or something I find even remoting interesting and a working keyboard, I'll probably stub out an article and I do take joy in that. Here's another one I'm quite proud of; yeesh, has it really been almost eight years? -- Kendrick7 11:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Humayun Khan (soldier) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Humayun Khan (soldier) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Humayun Khan (soldier) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference spacing

Hi there,

Saw this at Humayun Khan (soldier). Not actually interested to get involved in that particular back-and-forth, but it made me curious. I understand each parameter on a separate line for templates not used in the text, like infoboxes. I'd also understand someone having a preference for them to be displayed that way with named references stored together at the bottom. But why that way in the text? When I see that, I presume it's because someone copy/pasted or used a citation tool and nobody has gone through to clean it up yet. To me a citation that takes up as much space as two paragraphs negatively affects usability/editability. Although I regularly remove such line breaks, I don't think I've ever been reverted for it (nor can I remember seeing a revert, except perhaps for an infobox). Seeing this ongoing dispute, however, makes me realize that I don't know what basis there is in the MOS or elsewhere for either position. WP:CITEVAR doesn't cover it (it's not a change in citation style/method), nor do I see anything on the rest of Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. If there's a page, or perhaps an RfC, could you point me to it? Thanks. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What is truth? redirect

I've nominated the redirect What is truth?, which you retargeted in 2007, for discussion. See the redirect discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 16#What is truth. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kendrick7. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:People from Indiana in the Iraq War has been nominated for discussion

Category:People from Indiana in the Iraq War, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wall of text listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wall of text. Since you had some involvement with the Wall of text redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:70th millennium BC has been nominated for discussion

Category:70th millennium BC, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=3dz0m2ubQw1KSnb_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_7QJK0vYNdV9NJdj&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Misplaced Pages that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

U. S. security listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect U. S. security. Since you had some involvement with the U. S. security redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION 23:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kendrick7. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Kendrick7: Difference between revisions Add topic