User talk:Kentholke

Welcome!

Please:

1. Remember the "Golden Rule"^[1]
2. Bear in mind that I am human also, I unfortunately do err and am acutely aware that I do. More frequently than some, less frequently than others (I hope).
3. If you feel I am in error and cannot find the strength to remember #1 and bear in mind #2, please afford me just a tad extra time to compose my reply to you in essence of #1 and #2.
4. Click or tic here to add a new discussion

Hello, Kentholke! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just curious

Was there an external reason why you removed yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year, or was it just a personal decision? Kingturtle (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am questioning whether I have an actual grasp of what is going on here. I'm certainly no stranger to being edited, but having seen several removals of what I consider somewhat noteworthy events I've added, perhaps it is best for me to stand back and observe for a while. For me, an event is something everyone remembers and stopped at one point or another to discuss. It's something you saw on every channel on the news, and watched Jay Leno, Johnny Carson, Dave Letterman, Andy Rooney, and many others hash over for a week. In addition, to me, an event is something which helped shape the course of a certain culture or even the whole of humanity.

Now I can agree that some events are bigger than others, but I can't understand why someone who had such a profound effect on the music industry, profound so much that he is included in Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, is considered not notable. Phil Spector has touched a significant percentage of the world's population in one way or another. I personally don't like him as a person, but I and many millions of others apparently do appreciate and revere him as evidenced by the number of books written about him/including him, the number of magazines he's appeared on the cover of, the long list of hit's he's associated with, the long list of legends he's worked with, the number of song lyrics that include reference to him, etc. And for him to be arrested in connection with a capitol murder investigation? It was the #1 headline around the globe that day, and a top headline for a number of days after.

Michael Jackson's hair going up was just one of those things everyone joked about for a considerable period of time. That was a top headline. I can accept that event may not be ultra-noteworthy in respect to how people were affected by it, but I truly suspect more people know details concerning that event and would be more interested in reading about MJ and/or the incident than a few other events that are listed.

I'm just going to remain in the shadows for a bit and try to learn more. I truly appreciate your concern. Thanks Kentholke (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The standards have change through the years for what people think constitutes worthwhile for days of the year article, but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way or that it will stay that way. Having a new person involved can sometimes serve as a catalyst - or a new creative force. There's not harm in being bold if your intentions are good. Anyway, keep up the good work, Kingturtle (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

According to the February 25 page history, it looks like you added an event concerning a 1969 ransom paid by Germany to hijackers

That would be wrong, as this diff shows: read the left column under "[1969]] - George Jones marries Tammy Wynette" and you'll see that was there already. --Calton | Talk 09:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding was a response to a discussion Kentholke began upon Calton's Talk page

No problem

No problem - glad to have been of help! DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vimy Ridge

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=feature/vimy89

First page, first result. As stated, the reliable source is the Government of Canada. While not a public holiday (as I clearly stated), it still sits alongside the likes of ANZAC Day. May I suggest checking the links on various observances before you arbitrarily delete them? I'll agree that Desan and the various other feast days are largely obsolete to the common citizen, but doubtless there are people and groups still observing them - I can't comment on that, but I know Vimy Ridge is still an annual occurrence.

Please read the notes on edits you decide to undo - I stated this is not a holiday, but an official observance. In fact, it's listed as such on the main Vimy Ridge page and also in the Half-staff article. I'd have left a note on the article's talk page if it wasn't dominated by an infobox containing two comments from 2008.

By the way, Desan has a linked article but that didn't stop your decision to wipe it from the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.10.3 (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2331488&Language=e&Mode=1&File=19

That would be the official declaration, just in case one believes that a person would fabricate a veterans website. 86.12.10.3 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've gone through the Battle of Vimy Ridge article and the Canada article and still cannot find any reference to a day of "official observance." I mispoke when I used the term "holiday." Again, I don't doubt you, but you certainly are not saying that statements anyone makes in Wikipedia articles don't need to be verified, are you? I should not have to pour through search engine results, nor through the hundred links provided in the article to find the info. Again, WP:DOY guidelines for the DOY pages gives minimum requirements for what's acceptable. Trust me when I tell you that I don't follow those guidelines "to the letter." Frequently I do stop and add verification to articles. Again, perhaps you should check out the welcome page for some tips. Just a suggestion.

I understand that the information is available on the Internet. That is not the point here. The point is that the information needs to be in the referenced article.

And if I missed the reference to the "observance" in either article listed, it's because I am human. I've gone through both articles three times now. Kentholke (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be looking til doomsday, I think. I believe I wrote Half-staff, but clearly I should have linked directly to it. I trust you can locate the relevant sub-section on that page vis-à-vis national flag at half mast, every year, April 9. While not as extensive as the above script from the Canadian government, I believe it to be sufficient. Vimy Ridge article itself merely indicates the importance of the event to Canada rather than the world as a whole. Naturally we agree that statements must be verified, but that hasn't helped poor St Desan or his companions. Further, as DOY is merely a proposed policy I would suggest that the "issue" of linking to a main article is entirely besides the point. Certainly feel free to use the relevant links I've supplied if you feel it is necessary, I'm more content to leave them on the talk page (here, and soon to be added to April 9) rather than start a trend in adding reference notes to the bottom of EVERY date (as a date watcher, you can understand how cluttered that will make things).

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the dates could do with tidying, but I just feel you may wish to be a bit more careful with regards to stating that fairly well known (in this case, presumably well known to Canadians) and officially recognised dates are "unsupported". I would have expected a project member to verify and correct existing information rather than dismiss it out of hand, leaving it for others to correct. But there we have it.

Welcome link isn't required, by the way. 86.12.10.3 (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is an opposing point of view. I originally saw the event on April 9. I scanned the Vimy Ridge article and the Canada article, used my browsers search feature for both and came up empty. In the Vimy Ridge article, there's a section pertaining to the influence on Canada. I followed that link and again came up empty. I just went through both articles looking for Half-staff. The reference or link is not in the Vimy Ridge or Canada article.

Before you shoot back, I realize you never said it was in those articles. And at no point in time, even prior to today, did I ever think it was not an observance. Reading through the Vimy Ridge article left me with the impression that it probably is. Wiki is not what I believe or don't believe however, it's about verifiability. By your own admission, you should have linked the Half-staff article. Had the Half-staff article been linked, we would not be having this discussion.

I beg that you'll indulge me for a moment to see where I'm coming from, though this deviates away momentarily from Vimy Ridge.

On the January 29 page, there was a 1978 event listed that said Sweden became the first country to ban aerosols. I remembered seeing the same event on the January 23 page. Which one is right? There was NO support in any of the links provided. So I left a message on the talk January 29 talk page. I did search Wiki and found two articles that weren't linked to the events listed that stated Sweden was the first in 1978/1979. Neither article had any citation concerning the date. I searched the Internet but could not find any reliable source that had any citation. To make a very long story short, this was the result: Link 1 & Link 2. If you do a search on the Internet, you'll find many many thousands of pages that contain this false information. How did this information get started? All from one person or persons picking up and running with unverified information. Even the Stockholm Convention took the EPA press release at face value. The EPA reported the word "ban." Sweden only agreed to form a committee to discuss the matter. That is all.

So when you tell me I should check links on various observances before arbitrarily deleting them, let me assure you, I do. More than most. A helluva lot more than most. Not always to the extent mentioned above, but I do excercise "due dilligence." And when you use the term "wiping out" in relation to Desan, an ambiguation page with two links, one pointing to a bishop and others, none of whom are saints or Popes or even beatified, sharing five barely informative sentences between all four. Not notable in my opinion. Martyred? OK. Martyred they appear to be. But if we stop to list each and every martyr from every religion we will have thousands of martyrs (literally) on each page. How many have died in how many battles throughout the years? They're martyrs. Where does one draw the line?

And your remark: I would have expected a project member to verify and correct existing information rather than dismiss it out of hand, leaving it for others to correct. But there we have it, is absolutely inflamatory, and unjust. You seem to expect everyone to know there's an article "Half-staff." You seem to expect everyone to have to go in search of corroborating information rather than provide it in a link for everyone. You seem to expect everyone to have to go outside of Wikipedia to verify what you write. Who's not doing their work? Kentholke (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect, my philosophy on projects is that one is verifying the existing information (thereby assuming good faith on the part of the original authors) and THEN initiating deletion procedures as required, rather than wiping first and expecting others to pick up the pieces. There are an awful lot of observances in the world, and I would consider it poor form to delete them because other authors have not adhered to a PROPOSED policy that has appeared after their initial contribution. Vimy Ridge is an easy example because it's fairly notable within a first world country, but events specific to second/third world nations and creeds are going to suffer from a lack of representation.

But this is beside the point. I believe you acted in good faith, and my only concern is that you perhaps take a bit more care as you are acting in concert with an official project. I prefer to verify, then act, rather than the opposite. You may disagree. My only intent was to correct an "error" that I found through casual browsing. As I have indicated, I fully agree that the pages need a clean out, and if you found my response inflammatory then I trust you will understand the frustration of approaching a DoY Project member only to be (to my initial eyes) effectively told "There's too many websites and I can't check everything I delete". On that point, I should have been more open on good faith and tolerant of different approaches to editing articles.

I do not expect people to independently research my *edits* (dynamic IP, no account, how would one expect people to contact me?), and therefore when I *edit* I provide full links. However, when I am *reverting* an "error" I believe (rightly or wrongly) the burden is on the revertee (as it were) to provide evidence contrary to the work established by other authors. It's a house of cards, or perhaps house of good faith, and the burden is always on the "contrary" editor I'm afraid.

You shouldn't feel the need to justify your edits, as you appear to have done in your retort, because we both agree that they are largely constructive and a necessity to the improvement of the DoY pages. This is not under dispute. We just disagree on the approach to the edit itself.

But I digress again, I hope you have resolved this issue with no hard feelings. With respect to Desan... I had to dig on an Orthodox Church website to find the information. This may necessitate a reconfiguration of many of your earlier edits, with respect to any confusion between Roman Catholic feast days and Orthodox feast days. Not only because Orthodox feast days may be incorrectly labelled, but also because many Orthodox days may have been deleted in error as they would not appear on a Roman Catholic list.

Best Orthodox site I could find is as follows - http://www.oca.org/FSlives.asp?SID=4&M=4&D=9

I hope this cordially resolves any disagreement, and if so then I wish you and your Project all the best in your future endeavours. 86.12.10.3 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Leo II

Wikipedia has Pope Leo II as being born on August 17. I am confused as to why you feel that this is erroneous? Should you not remove that date from Pope Leo II's page then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.87.80 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read it, it says:

Pope Saint Leo II was Pope from August 17, 682 to June 28, 683

It doesn't say he was born on that date. He became Pope on that date. In the template on the left side of the page, there's three question marks as to his birth (???). Easy mistake to make I guess because I just went back and saw "August 17" glaring at me and immediately thought I made a mistake. Took me several minutes to realize it doesn't say "born." I used the term erroneous because I do try to convey my reasoning for my edits in the edit summary so people don't have to guess. Kentholke (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.167.3.25 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Space reorganization

Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:

Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Casey Jones

This is the note at the end of the article. He was born in 1863. The tombstone is wrong. I'm not going to bother changing it back to 1863 since it will be changed back to 1864 by someone else in the future.

"Jones' tombstone in Jackson's Mount Calvary Cemetery gives his birth year as 1864 but according to information written in the family Bible by his mother he was born in 1863. The tombstone was donated in 1947 by two out-of-town railroad enthusiasts who accidentally got his birth year wrong. Until then, a simple wooden cross had marked his grave." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.76.162.253 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Page

Nice Page.I enjoy music 2 but I'm REALLY BAD at photography.Still your interests are cool. I Respect you and I bet you cook grate food.I bake but there is a difference (I think) BellaFan262 (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at February 17

Hi, just to let you know when I put "vandalism" into my edit summary I didn't mean you. The three prior edits before you were all vandalism, and rather than try and sort out the issues individually the easiest thing to do was just to revert back to the non-vandalised version. -- role^player 23:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worry, I figured out we attacked it simultaneously. I don't think it was vandalism but an honest attempt by a newbie. I had it sorted out but your edit overrode mine, lol. I'll add back the sorted out event and message point him/her to WP:DOY regarding red links. Ken Tholke (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Wales Coast Path WikiProject

As a member of WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Cardiff or an user who has contributed to Welsh articles we invite you to contribute to a new project, Living Paths!: articles, images, translations... Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in across the world.

If you are interested in training groups in Wales, please leave a message on the Talk Page.
Let's make this WikiProject, like the path itself, the best on earth! And let's put Wales back on the map!

Cymrodor (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.