User talk:Kenatipo

My username is from the Old Elbonian and means provocateur or "bomb-thrower" (for those of you who didn't study French). --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• PRCs

• StBridget,Mobile

• St. Helena Star

• Constantinos Patrides

• Media lies about George Zimmerman (and Trayvon Martin)

Colors Top Secret

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

References[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! Lionel (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Kenatipo, have you seen this [1]? Looks like fun. If you have time to spare you may want to check it out. Lionel (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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) ][reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Please visit this link [2] as your opinion and expertise would be appreciated. Fountainviewkid 21:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Artificial Intelligence subsection (copied from User talk:Objectivist)[edit]

This is a reducto ad absurdum argument, showing how ridiculous is one of the standard anti-abortion arguments. The "anti" argument goes something like this: Once conception occurs, an individual organism begins to exist that, even if it is not yet a Person, has the potential to become a Person, and therefore abortion must be prevented, in order to allow that potential to be fulfilled.

There are actually two counter-arguments. First, just because some type of Potential exists, that does not automatically mean it must be fulfilled. Otherwise you might as well believe that just because you have the potential to fall down some stairs and break your neck, it must be allowed to happen.

Second is the Artificial Intelligence argument.

Before getting to it, though, it is necessary to provide some evidence supporting the notion that a True Artificial Intelligence, fully equivalent to a human Person, is likely to exist someday. There are a lot of ignorant humans out there who think that such a thing is impossible, and they all need some education about the topic. Basically, the more that modern computer science progresses, the more that it is taking notes from how Nature operates to process data, including how the human brain operates. Some very relevant links are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence http://cs.nyu.edu/courses/fall10/G22.2965-001/geneticalgex http://www.ibm.com/innovation/us/watson/index.html http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2008/11/06/knight-rider-self-programming-machines/ http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/38367/ It has been suggested that the human brain has a storage capacity of One Terabyte (a trillion bytes), and a great many ordinary personal computers being sold these days have that much long-term storage space. However, in the human brain most of its memory is of a "random access" type, which means it still exceeds personal-computer RAM capacity by a factor of several hundred. But at the rate hardware technology is improving, in perhaps 15 years average desktop computers will have as much RAM as the human brain (and much greater long-term storage capacity). About the only thing not yet under serious development, in computer science, is the notion of "Free Will". Nevertheless, Science has already provided some key insights regarding the possibility of one day incorporating it into a computer-based intelligence. Throughout much of History there was a significant debate between the opposing concepts of Free Will and "Determinism". That debate appears to have ended in favor of Free Will, thanks to Quantum Mechanics, the Uncertainty Principle and the Bell test experiments. Furthermore, the structure of a neuron appears to be fully able to directly sense Quantum Randomness (it mostly has to send its signals through that noise!). What this means is that it becomes possible for a prey-animal, being chased by a predator, if the prey subconsciously pays some attention to that noise, to jump in combinations of directions that can't be predicted even-in-theory, increasing its chance of escape. And once such a biological mechanism begins to exist, to allow some randomness to be added to overall animal behavior, Free Will can emerge as a simple consequence of Evolution.

The next piece of education concerns the difference between natural biological hardware and human-built hardware. Fundamentally, there is no difference. http://www.humantouchofchemistry.com/urea Both types of hardware consist of atoms interacting with each other. So, the more we learn about those interactions in biological hardware, the more we can imitate them with human-built hardware.

So, provided that our knowledge of physical matter, and computer science, continues to advance, it seems almost inevitable that a Person-class Artificial Intelligence will one day be constructed. If nothing else, someone will try to do it just to prove it can be done!

Now, how does the existence of a Person-Class Artificial Intelligence affect the abortion debate? Simple!

First, I shall simply rephrase the anti-abortion argument presented earlier: "Once some initial biological hardware begins to exist such that it has the potential to include a Person-class intelligence, that potential must be allowed to be fulfilled."

Second, I shall simply talk about different hardware: "Once some initial nonbiological hardware begins to exist such that it has the potential to include a Person-class intelligence, that potential must be allowed to be fulfilled."

What that means is every ordinary computer on the planet must be co-opted for use in building Artificial Intelligences, as soon as the first one exists! Which is absurd! Which therefore means that the anti-abortion argument, regarding biological hardware, is also absurd! V (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 28, 2011. 

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)[reply]

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 [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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 [4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

[5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

*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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

		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)[reply]

Thank you for the 'star, Sp33dyphil. (I may just keep it here a while — I like the cross in the middle of it!). --