User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/10

Holy Land Map

"A 1759 map entitled The Holy Land, or Palestine, showing not only the Ancient Kingdoms of Judah and Israel in which the 12 Tribes have been distinguished, but also their placement in different periods as indicated in the Holy Scriptures by Tobias Conrad Lotter, Geographer. Augsburg, Germany"

I can't understand Latin, so I was wondering if you could shed some light on a particular point regarding this map. I'm particularly interested in the phrase, "also their placement in different periods as indicated in the Holy Scriptures". Does the Map give an indication of any specific date(s) that it is supposed to depict?

Also, just out of interest regarding your last comment on the talk page, are you aware of any other articles that present a similar fanciful Map in a section dedicated to the actual history of a region. Thanks, Dlv999 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Greg Parke (politician)

The article Greg Parke (politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject is not a notable politician, military officer or diplomat. Fails WP:POLITICIAN; WP:MILNG; WP:MILPEOPLE; WP:DIPLOMAT; WP:NRVE. Five bedroom bedroom B&B built by descendant of notable person seems more WP:SOAP.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vttor (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grasping at straws listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grasping at straws. Since you had some involvement with the Grasping at straws redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Equazcion ^(talk) 17:57, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC) 17:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kabuki dance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kabuki dance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabuki dance 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 template from the top of the article. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfD about redirect you changed

Hi, there's currently an RfD going on about WP:ESSAY, which you retargeted, but I can't understand why you chose to do that. If you could comment on the issue, it would be helpful. --N Y Kevin @191, i.e. 03:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why I reverted your changes to Saros (astronomy)

Your math is just plain wrong. Dividing 6585.3213 / 18 tells us nothing about the period of the saros. You have to multiply the difference you found by 18 to get the correct figure. The correct calculation is 6585.3213/365.242199 (one year) which indeed yields 18 years 11 days. As I did a reversion you will need to re-insert the info about the Antikythera(sp?) mechanism. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Job creators

See here.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here. And I'm apparently a Republican Party Reptile.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was unaware that you had no interest in political satire. I shan't bother you further.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Shuffle

Hello. In March of 2010 you edited Kansas City Shuffle and included a sentence that reads "The relevance to a direction stated at the beginning of a situation has no bearing to the outcome." Could you clarify that sentence, please? I don't understand what you were trying to say in that article. Thank you. 76.105.171.161 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

internal logic listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Internal logic. Since you had some involvement with the internal logic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).

It has been kept, although I do not see any good reason for it on the RfD page. What is your opinion? You said, it should be replaced by some kind of stub for the non-mathematical meaning. And before there is a stub? Regards --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random IP troll

Keep your politics off Wikipedia, please, OK? Wiki isn't for your political positions on groups, it's for facts. Taking a position on the validity of their message is not what Wiki is about.

Well Done!

You have been awarded the Super Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hey whats up hope you have a great time Kelenna (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hey Kendrick 7 Kelenna (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chad_Kolton

Hello, Kendrick7. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Chad_Kolton, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Toasty (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Chad_Kolton

Hello, Kendrick7,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Chad_Kolton should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad_Kolton .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Toasty (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kendrick7. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hilarious

I must say this IP post was hilarious, especially how he tried to clean it up, apparently not knowing there would be a diff.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bush administration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the OPSEC article. It was needed and timely! `Belchfire`-TALK 06:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Hey Kendrick7, in Wikipedia could you get like an avatar of yourself like a picture. Do you have any articles you need me too edit or add on to? Oh and thanks for the kitten here is a cupcake. Kelenna (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Exactly HOW am I suppose to create my user page I want a step of directions. Kelenna (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Or a six-pack if you need it. Smallbones (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

What I am saying is I need a set of directions from you for how to decorate my user page, Kelenna (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't just do that

And yet I just did. WP:IGNORE -- Kendrick7^talk 02:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a "final" warning, if you restore the page again you will be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a second final warning against restoring the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do this?

Why did you do this when the result of the AfD was Delete? This is not the correct protocol for overturning a result that you did not agree. Arzel (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your continued disregard of the AfD here. Arzel (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You have a moral compass and a keen nose for trickery. You also have the willingness to do the right thing, regardless. I commend you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused.

"Description: The Admin's Barnstar may be awarded to administrators who made a particularly difficult decision, did a tiresome but needed admin task, cleared some nasty backlog or just to show an administrator that you think they are doing good work in a particular area of "the job" and that their work is appreciated. To be used when other, more specific, barnstars do not apply to the reasons at hand."

Naapple (Talk) 07:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Could you help me delete my profile in wikipedia? Is there any delete button? I need a set of directions from YOU to tell me how to delete my profile becaus I do not want to be a member anymore. Kelenna (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CopBlock.org for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CopBlock.org is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CopBlock.org 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 template from the top of the article. Dmol (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tax returns of Mitt Romney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Your recent editing history at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on . Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 04:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should another admin see fit to accept any unblock request, I suggest they place this user under a topic ban from 2012 Presidential Campaign articles per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log.--v/r - T P 04:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

this is plainly ridiculous. All I've done is try to improve the encyclopedia by adding content

Decline reason:

You have edit-warred to attempt to insert a huge chunk of information deemed by other editors to give undue weight to one particular issue in a BLP. No successful unblock request ever started with "the others are wrong" and this will not be an exception. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a joke. I'm being blocked for adding information to the project per WP:ENC

Decline reason:

You've also edit warred and edited tendentiously, ignored consensus, tried to game the system, displayed bad faith in mislabeling people who hold different opinions that you do vandals, etc. etc. Would it be that all you did here was try to add content. It was the manner in which you behaved in the process of trying to do so that is the reason for your block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, I would suggest choosing different actions, preferably ones that involve discussion and treating other editors and Wikipedia processes with respect. Jayron32 04:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That is all nonsense. Consensus can't override our fundamental mission of being an encyclopedia. I will revert vandalism until my dying breath.[1] How else to explain this?

Decline reason:

I'd give a laundry list of reasons why this was declined, but Drmies and Jayron32 already have. As you're clearly not listening, don't understand how Wikipedia works (per your "Consensus doesn't matter" statement), and either can't or won't tell what is vandalism from what isn't, instead posting three unblock requests that continue to insist that you've done nothing wrong, refuse to consider the mere possibility that you have, and promise continued disruption if unblocked, your talk page access has been revoked for the duration of this block. Further appeals may be sent to WP:BASC at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There was no vandalism. You've been here long enough that you should know that, just as you should know that consensus is the name of the game. Keep playing the "joke/nonsense/plainly ridiculous" card and you'll never get unblocked; the next administrator can always decide to block talk page access since all you're doing is digging a deeper hole for yourself. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny you should mention that in the (edit conflict). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Then I regret to inform you that I'll have to block you "until your dying breath". Extended to indef, and talk page access revoked. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Indefinite" is a pretty long time. Perhaps we could put a finite expiration contingent to a topic ban on election-related articles. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Indefinite" isn't any specific time at all, neither long nor short. It is simply until the editor makes a convincing unblock request, eg via WP:BASC or WP:UTRS - it could be tomorrow. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick, I understand why you want some of this material in the article, but edit-warring isn't going to get you there. For that matter, now that you're blocked, insisting that you're going to edit war the moment you get unblocked will only delay that moment indefinitely. I'd like you to agree to 1RR on political articles and request an unblock on that basis. Not only is this better than an indefinite block, it gives you the chance to make your case on the article talk page. Perhaps with some changes to the text and some improved citations, some of what you want is possible. But it's only possible if you put aside your anger and agree to stop edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your talk page access so that you can log into this account and make one final unblock request. T. Canens (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Slurpee Summit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slurpee Summit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slurpee Summit 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 template from the top of the article. BDD (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American occupation of Iraq listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect American occupation of Iraq. Since you had some involvement with the American occupation of Iraq redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once more with feeling

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK User:Timotheus Canens, I confess: I did a horrible thing back in September by restoring deleted edits created by other editors about Mitt Romney, who, we can all agree, is just some shlub and not even close to being a public figure, and as such my WP:BLP lifetime ban is entirely fair. It won't happen again, cross my heart and hope to die. I think I speak for the collective peoples of the world when I say: Mitt Romney who? Upon this anniversary of Wikipedia, how about we just bury the hatchet? Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive and before this ugly incident I was an editor in good standing for nearly 8 years running, on and off. Have I been a zealot for WP:5P and WP:PRESERVE? Well, yes, but someone has to be. Let's just grow into being better editors and move on, OK? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Oh how wise: appealing a BLP block with a violation of our BLP policy built right in. Clearly you're not ready to move on, so I'm satisfied that this block continues to meet its purpose of protecting the encyclopedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry, what? I've been incredibly patient in doing my time out -- I've been blocked for 4 months now. Making a joke about the losing Presidential candidate's fate in the dustbin of history is hardly a WP:BLP violation, but I might suppose that such is the mentality behind my indef block in the first place. Can please I get an admin around here to WP:AGF, as opposed to the handful that are apparently tag teaming me? Having been with the project lo these many years, although mostly editing as an IP, I just want to enjoy the ten year anniversary of the project as a freeman. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you are going to be unblocked, you need to convince a reviewing admin that the behavior that resulted in the block will not reoccur. Making jokes about a BLP subject in your unblock request does not inspire confidence, and seems similar to your previous unblock requests where you simply ignored the reasons why you were blocked. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Look, I am happy to admit that merging Mitt Romney's tax returns back to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign article constituted a WP:BLP violation, and I absolutely regret my behavior. I didn't even read the material prior to the merge, but still, I was neither warned, nor in any other way informed that such a merge might constitute grounds for an indefinite block before it occurred. Mitt Romney lives, at least for tax purposes, just a few miles down the road from me. I will go to his home on my hands and knees and apologize profusely, that for a mere few minutes, my edits existed and may have painted him in a bad light during the recent presidential campaign. I would rather that Wikipedia forgive me for my sin, given my many years of otherwise good service to the project. -- Kendrick7^talk 5:25 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Your continued sarcasm does nothing to convince me that you take the BLP policy seriously - quite the reverse, in fact. Looking over your previous appeals, I see this has been a continuing issue; unless your next appeal demonstrates a serious shift in attitude, you are likely to find your access to even this talkpage being revoked. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were warned, at least twice, about edit-warring, and told that continuing could get you blocked - your not understanding that such a block might be indefinite is no excuse for ignoring those warnings and carrying on. So, I'd say you need to knock off this passing part of the blame on to other people for your own poor behaviour. And all this sarcastic "I will go to his home on my hands and knees..." nonsense is just making you sound like a petulant teenager - I wouldn't unblock you while you continue with this attitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Again, in all my years with the project, I've never heard of an indef block for edit warring, and if that is all I'm actually guilty of, this block remains ridiculous.

I've likewise never heard of an indef block being meted out after 15 minutes of discussion of an AN/I thread during which the person accused didn't even get an opportunity to even defend themselves. When exactly did we become barbarians? An indef block used to be a serious deal.

And I don't understand why the other admin thinks I'm making a joke about living a few miles from Mitt Romney, who like myself resides in or around Belmont, Massachusetts, and is the person I supposedly WP:BLP violated during the 2012 U.S. Presidential election; check my IP. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the comment below. After seven years and a a block history almost a page long, you can't even be said to be fresh out of good faith. You've been long out of good faith. In fact, I would daresay that you've exhausted the community's patience as well. -- Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm confused: we permablock edit warriors regularly, so claiming you haven't heard of it sounds weird. Edit warring is no different from any other blockable offence: first, you tend to get short blocks, then they escalate until the last one becomes an indef. Max Semenik (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Oh, please. My previous block was nearly 3 years prior to this one. Three years of good behavior is nearly half of my time editing on the project with a

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kendrick7/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Oh, please. My previous block was nearly 3 years prior to this one. Three years of good behavior is nearly half of my time editing on the project with a WP:Username, so this is hardly a case of escalating blocks; that the length of my current block was actively WP:Wheel'd over makes my block list look far longer than it truly is. Again, blocks aren't meant to be punitive. I've served my time since this this September 2012 block. Mitt Romney's campaign is moot. Were the same editors, who felt I was mistaken in trying to provide our readers with more than passing information about Mitt Romney's tax returns, to put the entire campaign article up for deletion at this time, I would not lift a finger to stop them. It's upon the ash heap of history, as I said above. What possible harm would I do now on the matter? None. I no longer care. I can not imagine caring at any future date. I've been thoroughly punished and am thoroughly repentant. Having fallen behind now with 6 months worth of edits -- none of which relate to current events or politics -- horrifies me. This block is also cramping my style at Wikisource. If I can't find an admin who will unblock me soon, I don't know what I will do :( -- Kendrick7^talk 05:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I don't know if you are aware of this, but you are really bad at making unblock requests. I am frankly surprised you were allowed to make so many. However, per the remarks below, this one is accepted in the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE, meaning you are being taken at your word that such behavior will nor be repeated, but also that you should be aware that you are pretty much "under the microscope" especially in the realm of BLP articles, which you should probably avoid entirely for a while until you have re-established yourself as a productive editor. Welcome back. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the original blocking administrator, I think Kendrick gets the point by now even if he skates around it. I don't think our job is to break the guy until he submits to 'our rule' and I've got no issues with him being unblocked. Maybe a BLP topic ban would serve us better than a block.--v/r - T P 14:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Murray Hill Incorporated for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murray Hill Incorporated is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Hill Incorporated 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 template from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be Careful

I am glad to see that you were unblocked (although, how the heck did you get to make 10 denied unblock requests?). Be very careful, for as admins have said, they will be watching you like a hawk, considering you unfortunately, have 20 records in your Block Log. Good luck, sir/madam. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 16:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the year

"I worry we are bending over backwards to mislead our readers about something our sources suggest isn't quite true". Of course there was no intended double entendre with your comment LOL..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I bet its been done at the Pikes Hotel, eesh...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kendrick7. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page.
Message added 04:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

... for the compliment! הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Change for the Cure

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Change for the Cure requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Taroaldo ✉ 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Change for the Cure for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Change for the Cure is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Change for the Cure 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. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent behaviour

Your recent behaviour surrounding Change for the Cure and its associated Afd is becoming disruptive. The point has been made to you, very clearly, by more than one editor that there is no organisation. Therefore WP:ORG does not apply. Now you have made baseless accusations at the AfD and appear to be starting an edit war over an obviously incorrect stub on the Change for the Cure page. My advice would be to stop. Thank you. Taroaldo ✉ 02:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to be careful when calling others disruptive. You've hounded every opinion on that AfD that wasn't yours. Take your own advice.--v/r - T P 13:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]