KenThomas

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, KenThomas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jojhutton (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Indecent exposure appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. [1] W☯W ^t/c 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

W☯W, I will assume good intents here as a matter of custom. However, I wonder if you really have thought about this. While my edit was certainly intended as "bold," the previous version blithely asserted a variety of things about 'indecent exposure' which are true only from the Point of View of certain social contexts, primarily in the US-- exactly what NPOV warns about. I have relativized, taking into account other points of view, and certainly, debunking the notion that 'indecent exposure' is a universal term that can be defined in the voice of G-d. KenThomas (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. FYI, "alleged to violating" is not proper English. Why do you keep removing "deliberate"? "Public indecency" is not just alleged to be violating standards; it IS doing so (and is "likely to be seen as" doing so). But what those standards are, varies, based on locale. E.g. in California, full nudity in public is legal; see this edit I made. In some countries, a woman's display of bare arms in in public would be considered Public indecency. Agreed?--W☯W ^t/c 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, as well. 'Alleged to be violating' would be what I meant.

In regards to your other points-- I don't see that there can be anything, but an 'alleged' violation, which may or may not be valid depending on Point of View. In Berkeley, for instance, there are those who 'allege' that the Naked Guy, or various naked couples, are violating standards of decency regardless of statute; that it to say, that while there is a legal-juridical definition of these matters, the legal-juridical definition (and state of current "Law" in any "Jurisdiction" does not fully define or determine the "concept."

In the end, what we are talking about is a concept, a theoretical entity, a cultural and political assertion that a certain kind of behavior or act, constitutes (in this case) 'decency' or 'indecency'. Such an assertion is quintessentially a "Point of View." The article should reflect that.

I have tried to push the article towards a more anthropological language to describe the concept, which is a) somewhat 'debunking' in a way that may not be fair, and, of course b) yet another point of view-- but one which I hope moves closer to neutrality. And "Neutral Point of View," of course, is also another Point of View!

The example language in the NPOV FAQ uses completing scientific theories, and does a rather good job of stepping back and treating them "objectively." In the case of a legal-political-cultural concept such as this, it seems to me much harder to find a language which deals with the 'concepts' as objective, independent things and does not 'adopt their point of view' and 'advocate for it.'

Yes, public nudity is 'legal' (in the sense that there is no law against it) in parts of California, and has been illegalized in others (I can't keep up with what Berkeley has done, this week). But this does not mean that nudity is "public indecency" in some parts of California, and not in others. It simply means that there are laws against so-called "public indecency" in some parts of California, and there are not laws against it in others, and people continue to discuss and dispute what it is or isn't, or whether it is a valid, true, useful, concept at all.

In framing an article, just as with a scientific theory, we should reflect this difference of held opinion, neither adopting the Point of View of those who hold that 'public indecency' exists and is a valid way of thinking about matters, nor those who question it; but do something like accurately and succinctly reporting that this spectrum of opinions exists, without holding ourselves "above" and presuming that our 'neutral' point of view, is itself somehow 'superior' instead of a sort of rhetorical position, adopted for the pedagogical purposes of the Encyclopedia.

Is that immediately easy to do? Here, I don't think so-- and throughout Wilipedia, I think there is a tendency to report cultural concepts and entities with "is" in English, when "is a term used to describe" would be far more accurate under the terms of NPOV. (This is, for instance, a classical error in philosophical translation: "What is Philosophy?" has been used in English, when the question Heidegger posted was more like, "What is Called Philosophy?")

Regardless, a more fully neutral language-- one that does not assert the validity of "public indecency," nor endorse or advocate for it or its validity, but simply reports that the concept exists, and describes it-- is exactly what is called for, and what we should be moving towards.

And we should probably move this, to the Talk page on the Article. KenThomas (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nashville, Tennessee population

Would you please cite a source for your additions? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a brief source and will further update & add to talk tomorrow. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

3 revert rule warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Kaldari (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted twice. You've reverted twice (before me). You're causing an edit war via destructive reverts instead of edits, and not taking it to talk. Please stop. KenThomas (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm stopping and taking it to talk. Let's discuss this rather than edit warring. Kaldari (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Larry Kirshbaum

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Larry Kirshbaum. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Larry Kirshbaum

The article Larry Kirshbaum has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Larry Kirshbaum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Larry Kirshbaum 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/Larry Kirshbaum 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Use of ActivePol Template on AMLO page

First of all, I am aware of that rule, I'm not a noob here. Secondly, the rule applies at 4th revert not at third, and you may be blocked as well. Third, you have not reverted me. Fourth, the template itself says it "is intended for use on article talk pages only". Fifth, you've been told why the template doesn't belong to the article. So no, I'm not going to take it to the talk page as there is nothing to take to the talk page. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop == Logging out won't help you ==

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Tbhotch, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What the frack ever. You are not staff; your warning means nothing. Read the examples on the personal attacks page; I'm far short of what's been deemed acceptable; I'm not threatening you or harassing you. You are an ass, your behavior is childish, and I can say that on Wikipedia. And stop vandalizing my talk page! KenThomas (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, KenThomas, I am Dianna and I am an administrator on this wiki. Your insults and toxic behavior yesterday were over the line as to what is acceptable here. If you persist in attacking and insulting editors, you could be blocked from editing. -- Dianna (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dianna, that's fine. It's still your opinion. You may consider calling someone an ass when they're being an ass, and violating procedure, "toxic behavior." I don't, and consider your butt-in intervention here equally inappropriate and a "personal attack." KenThomas (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not only my opinion, it was the decision made by the Arbitration Committee in a recent case on civility. You are welcome to continue editing here if you are able to do so in a civil manner. Otherwise you will be blocked from editing. -- Dianna (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's your opinion that my comments (not edits) are not civil per the policy. No official body has made any decision to that effect. It's my opinion, in contrast, that annoying schoolmarms such as yourself are toxic to open, free discussion on WikiPedia. If you continue to make threats, I will take them as non-civil, and report them under the personal attacks policy. Understood? KenThomas (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for personal attacks and disruptive editing. Please take the time to reads through our policies and guidelines. You don't need to like all our policies, but you do need to respect them. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dianna (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This boils down to: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a (content) dispute; " -- Diannaa is blocking because of a hot, one-on-one, personal conflict; there is no evidence of disruptive editing, any perceived "abuse" towards a user was one-time (and barely discussed!), ie, no repetition of any alleged behavior occurred. Diannaa's block is in retailiation to a comment placed ON MY TALK PAGE (my userspace), -- "how can I disrupt my own talk page?" -- commenting on her behavior, and warning that I might seek admin action against perceived abuse by her.

Calling another editor's behavior "schoolmarmish" and expressing that one believes that pursuing petty conflicts is highly negative and toxic, is certainly fair and within the bounds of the "abuse policy." Responding to such a comment (placed on own talk page) with a block, is simply a personal, personal-conflict-motivated attack.

And with all respect-- even assuming previous "warning" was valid in its concern, block per the user abuse policy requires multiple repetition. This was and is a single incident, and only attempts at discussion (however phrased) have ensued. The block appears to be because Diannaa is in an active disagreement with me, and I'm challenging her behavior, and what I see as abusive, inappropriate use of threats.

The above is highly negative behavior, abuse of the blocks system, a "personal attack" on its face, reflects negatively on WikiPedia and its environment, contradicts the "blocks are a last resort to prevent (true) disruption, use discussion first" policy, and seems to be an attempt to suppress discussion of dissenting ideas on various policies-- or just plain, Diannaa's reaction to being disagreed with.

In the end, threats, including threats of blocks, are not discussion. If one says "well, the rules aren't so clear, let's talk about this" and gets back, "you're violating the rules, I'll block you!!!", then the system isn't working. If one replies to the previous, "let's take it to talk, let's discuss" and gets in return "there's nothing to discuss" ... well, I've read WP's policy documents, and you may disagree with me, but I think they could use some revision and clarification.

That's where this dispute began, and how we got here. One should not be blocked, for expressing a contrary opinion in discussion, on one's own talk page, and informing an editor or administrator that one finds their actions abusive. One should not be blocked, for expressing a contrary opinion in discussion, on one's own talk page, by the person one is debating.

In the end, what's the rationale here? What ongoing disruption or pattern of abuse is this designed to prevent? That I'll post disagreement on my talk page?!? One is supposed to *think* before issuing a ban, not fly off the handle! This is personal retaliation-- there's no ongoing abuse or disruption, other than some strongly-worded opposition to the current phrasing of the abuse policy, itself quite far away from "using disruption to make a point."

Decline reason:

Your talk page is for discussing with other users, not for giving out your opinions of their editing ability - that just fails WP:CIVIL, I see no reason for an early unblock.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the blocks policy. WP:CIVIL is not sufficient; there must be a reason to expect ongoing abuse/disruption. None exists here; this is retaliatory, pure and simple, in violation of many principles of the blocks policy. Certianly I can comment if I find an editor abusive? KenThomas (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

See above. Retaliatory blocks are not acceptable. KenThomas (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you wish, I'll unblock and then reblock you for your lack of civility, since you've declared it's justified and will continue. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

• Please re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You're clearly refusing to get the point, and if you don't change your behavior markedly (and stop WP:WIKILAWYERING about "comments" vs. "edits") your next block after this one expires is likely to come very soon and be very much longer. Your comments in this whole affair have been utterly unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLOCK. Is anyone willing to follow the rules here, as defined in the documents? It's you who don't get the point. I have not declared that I will continue with "incivility;" rather, in response to an incident, I've argued the opposition point-- that a limited amount of situational incivility, is reasonable, and fits within the policy as practiced. Calling actions "schoolmarmish" is not uncivil, it's summary. KenThomas (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A clarification, you did not define her actions as "schoolmamish", you described her as a person as so ("annoying schoolmarms such as yourself are toxic"). And if you think that your block is based solely on that single sentence you are mistaken. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Let's repeat this. I understand the policy, but policies are guidelines, not absolute rules. I have not declared that I will engage in any pattern of repeated incivility per what is actionable in WP:BLOCK, nor do I intend to. People have gotten their feathers ruffled, but ruffled feathers and temper are exactly what the blocking policy says *shouldn't* be a reason for blocking. "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users," especially for contrary opinions. Etc. KenThomas (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Until you realise that what you already did was uncivil and inappropriate, there can be no assurance that the same behavior will not continue. That is why you were blocked - preventative action as a result of your WP:IDHT regarding your incivility, and your continuing incivility. There is no "punishment" here, and nobody is 'out to get you for being a noob', we are here to build an encyclopedia, and your comments and actions ran fully against the civil, cooperative environment we need to build that encyclopedia, whether you realise, or admit, that they did or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

KenThomas, I just thought I would drop you a line and explain a bit about the sequence of events here. I noticed that Tbhotch had posted a complaint at an administrator's noticeboard last night, and since no other administrators had acted on the matter by the time I got up for work in the morning, I decided to place a warning on your talk page. This action was taken within the scope of my role as an administrator on this wiki. Your posts on the Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks page led me to believe that you disagree with our civility policy, which has developed via community consensus over the 10+ years that the website has been in existence, and was made even stricter as a result of the recent Arbcom ruling that I linked to above. I came to your talk page not to debate the civility policy, but to enforce it. So for you to say that we were engaged in a hot debate is inaccurate; for you to say I acted in haste or on the spur of the moment is inaccurate. Your continued posts in disagreement with our community-supported civility policy is what led to your block, as that led me to believe that your disruptive behavior would continue. Thus the block was preventative, not punitive, as is required by our blocking policy. In order to be allowed to edit here, you will need to show the community that you are prepared to abide by the established behavioural guidelines. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, your career here will be short. Sincerely, -- Dianna (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa,

Thank you for your longer, and more detailed explanation. However, I will continue to respectfully disagree.

Tbhotch's post on the administrative noticeboard was more than a bit of overkill, wasn't it? I read that that noticeboard is for death threats, legal threats, etc., etc. (depending on what source you read). A better response IMHO would have been to discuss, either via my talk pages, the talk page on the article (where I'd already initiated discussion), or the various dispute pages that are dedicated to resolving such matters congenially.

Instead, Tbhotch undid my edits and sent messages that said (I believe I'm quoting correctly) "I see no need to talk." I'm willing to tolerate that a bit, but in the end, I believe that attitude is a mix of vandalism, and a lack of courtesy. More practically, from the point of view of someone "merely trying to get something done," not get into a discussion, quick revisions in such a situation, and rapidly escalating demands for action of one kind or another, -- are simply highly disruptive, and, humans being humans, I believe its easy to see why they naturally lead to uncivil conflicts, whatever "rules" you put in place to the contrary.

In such a case, as an individual, one is left with continuing down the courtesy route, or being somewhat rude. While I generally prefer the courtesy route myself (*smile*), I believe that there is a limited scope for rudeness. Right or wrong-- I'm willing to be wrong here-- I chose rudeness, partially, because I believe that there is a lot of abuse of administrative procedures on WikiPedia, in various forms, and not enough thoughtful consideration before taking knee-jerk reactions.

As a community, I believe WikiPedia needs to be much more skeptical and pro-active. Perhaps a particular group of editors (I know it's not necessarily fun work) should deal with "concern trolling," (even admitting concern trolling may be well-intentioned). In short, for instance, someone should be policing the Admin page above, and starting with the basic question "is this post really about the topics this page is supposed to deal with?" (In this case, my claim would be: no, therefore, move it to the right queue, and make sure it's dealt with appropriately-- else, surely, it's going to cause confusion and inappropriate escalation on all sides.)

I very much appreciate your taking the time for a longer comment, and regret that I did not find that time-- it's often hard, with multiple people commenting, often, again IMHO, rudely and without sufficient review of the situation and history.

However, once again IMHO, I felt that Tbhotch's escalation to the Admin page was premature, and not what the admin page is meant for, at least according to its definition on many pages. Many (if not all) commenters seemed to miss that, and their motivations where unclear. This, to me, has the opportunity to seem like shark feeding, not the considered action I value (as much as I see it!) on Wikipedia.

Thus, similarly, I felt that your immediate threats of admin action / blocking were equally premature in the case. Certainly, I had been rude and more than (intentionally) pushed the Civility policy. (And certainly I'd posted a tongue-in-cheek criticism on that policy's page, with some choice words; but in the end, an absolute ban on 4-letter-words, as opposed to a policy that discourages them without thinking carefully, reduces the means we have to express ourselves).

I am hardly a newcomer to Wikipedia-- I'm an old BBN and Berkeley sysadmin who spent many hours on USENET-- and I believe I had an account very early. I feel my actions here were not taken rashly, but out of many discussion with people, both Wikipedia users and those who won't use Wikipedia, all of whom believe there are problems with how WikiPedia actually handles such disputes. In brief, those concerns boil down to feeling that WikiPedia can be very hostile to newcomers and occasional users, for reasons that are not productive.

Again, I believe your warnings and ultimate blocking action were out of line with the BLOCK policy as it is documented; that is generally better to resort to talk, as that and many other pages recommend; and that there *are* issues with the policies as practices, insomuch as I see long-time editors resorting to edit wars, rather than discussion. I believe the community could, should and must be more proactive here-- a fact I will discuss in time, with WikiPedia staff.

I certainly understand, from the above, that you might find being called a tedious schoolmarm, as above, offensive. And such, frankly, was my intent. However, my larger point was not to engage in personal insults with you or Cbhotch, but to use uncivil language to take apart a situation that seemed going nowhere-- and, I hoped, stay short of "disruption."

I do not, in the end, believe that incivility should be substantively expanded or tolerated on WikiPedia. I do believe that, even after 10 years of discussion etc., perfection has hardly been reached, and that additional structures and safeguards are needed in the community. In regards to the revisions policy, in this case I took the reverts to be highly uncivil, and believe that the tools and instructions regarding reverts, remain poor at communicating intent. Likely we need more than the advice on the 3RR page, that one should "not use edit summaries alone, but go to the users talk page and explain" -- because no one seems to follow that advice.

In the end here, I believe that both the spirit and the letter of the law of the BLOCK page (and etc) has been violated, and that multiple individuals, for whatever reasons (which cannot be clear unless discussed), have intentionally disregarded and flouted guidelines on BLOCK and elsewhere.

Yes, discussion is one way to resolve such issues-- but I've certainly seen it fail. Another way to head off such issues, is by more and frank discussion of WikiPedia's policies, better understanding of how they best work in practice, and better documentation of all of the previous.

In that regards, I do not believe I've been engaging in "WikiLawyering," insomuch as that means pointless and tedious contention. There's a big difference between blanking pages, vandalism, other intentional edit disruptions, and comment-level discussion that is not clearly disruptive and may or may not fall within the abuse guidelines. As the BLOCK page states, in such more ambiguous situations, discussion and clarification, not punitive enforcement, should be the first goal.

Equally, I must say, I found that both TBhotch and you, seemed to have a "it's our Wikipedia, you're a newcomer, we make the rules" attitude, which is an extreme turn-off to many newcomers who have substantive professional experience, especially online, and something to contribute here, even if we don't have the time to be highly active. With all frankness, I do know (through a friend at Vandy law) WikiMedia's recently hired legal counsel, and other WM employees, and discuss these issues with them. Treating newcomers, and/or individuals who are not as familiar with WikiPedia's editing tools as they may be with other tools, as interlopers and idiots-- even if you don't say it in those words, but imply it by your actions and attitude-- is both hostile and highly uncivil. This is one reason, administrators *really do* need to hold their actions to a higher standard, and not take action either in haste, in the middle of a conflict (which they may not recognize), or without sufficient thought and inspection of the situation.

Else they produce the very atmosphere they claim to be preventing, without even knowing it.

I thus very much and very seriously, meant that I found your serious of actions highly uncivil and inappropriate, as well as unproductive, in the terms of WikiPedia's policies, and that you didn't seem to be willing to see or consider this.

Best, KenThomas (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Since my block has been supported by four different administrators, I stand behind my actions. Please use your break from Wikipedia to find out more about our policies and culture. Civility is listed among the five pillars, the founding principles upon which Wikipedia was based. Once your block is over you are welcome to lobby for changes to the civility policy if that is your wish, or pursue any other productive edits that you feel will be of benefit to the encyclopedia. -- Dianna (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: You continue to be upset that Tbhotch refused to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. In the overwhelming majority of cases, you would be correct: talk page discussion is required, as opposed to edit-warring, and users should attempt to resolve the matter on the article's talk page before posting a dispute at ANI. But in this case, you were continuing to insert a talk page template into an article. Tbhotch was entirely correct that "there is nothing to discuss". I'm mentioning this because prior to this incident, I'm not seeing anything close to this level of incivility in your history. I thought the reason you got so angry might have been because the user refused to discuss the issue on the talk page. So I just wanted to note that in most cases you would be right, and point out why this case is an exception. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Policy is not optional

Based on your rant on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks‎, it's clear that you flatly reject that policy. If you haven't figured it out by now, compliance with that policy is not optional but editing here is. That you have contempt for the policy is clear, but if you edit here, you must follow it.

As Dianna succinctly said, "In order to be allowed to edit here, you will need to show the community that you are prepared to abide by the established behavioural guidelines. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, your career here will be short." If you disagree, then please voluntarily stop editing here.

This is likely the last time such a caution will be issued. Please heed it.

Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eureka Valley Girls School

The article Eureka Valley Girls School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A name jokingly used by 26 students of a college, but not mentioned in the article about the college: not encyclopedic. If it seems so important, mention it in Deep Springs College and make a redirect.

While all constructive 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. PamD 10:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:KenThomas/Rev. John Littlejohn

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 User:KenThomas/Rev. John Littlejohn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.littlejohn/482/mb.ashx. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Eric Farnsworth

Hello, KenThomas. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Eric Farnsworth, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)