User talk:Kcornwall

My last message was a bit harsh - sorry for that. I'm anxious to give character education an unbiased entry because it gets a lot of bad press that I sincerely don't believe it deserves. The current landscape of character education simply is not a conservative religious or political sphere - there are a number of well-regarded scholars who have useful things to say on the subject. Among them: Larry Nucci (Berkeley), Marvin Berkowitz (UMSL), John Cohen (Columbia), Tom Lickona (SUNY-Cortland), Martin Seligman, Darcia Narvaez (Notre Dame).

I'm happy to work with you on the History section if that helps.

Thanks for that.

Can you post some references here for me from these scholars? I have contacted a few universities over the last year involved in CE research asking for their latest evidence. I have never gotten a response. I've kept Google alerts on for more than a 2 years for news of CE: it's mostly cheerleading about school programs, every now and then some research (but based on circumstantial evidence or negative). I have a personal investment in this. I'm actually looking for what works so I can convince my own kid's school district to get rid of Character Counts! What I've turned up has been very discouraging and made me feel abused by all the hype - and the political and religious forces too often behind it. I'm all for being neutral, but supporters of CE need to get their act together and offer more than wishful thinking.

Can you please respond to the comments on the talk page for Cigar? The relevant section is Talk:Cigar #Unsourced edits to Health effects. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed that you moved this article to a new location. I have reverted the move for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it didn't follow our naming scheme, which is used to ensure articles are easier to find and more consistent. Secondly, there are no other articles on Kevin Cornwall on Wikipedia, so a disambiguation is inappropriate and unnecessary. And finally, it didn't follow our disambiguation guideline, which helps keep disambiguations consistent as well.

I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:Disambiguation for details on when and how to disambiguate. Also, I noticed your username is Kcornwall. Our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline provides advice on why it may not be a good idea to edit or create articles based around yourself.

If you have any questions, or need any assistance, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Ale_Jrb^talk 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

:I've undone your move of Kevin Cornwall because no disambiguation was necessary - no other "Kevin Cornwall"s have articles - see Special:Allpages/Kevin Cornwall. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not blank and replace article content as you did with the above article, which is considered an act of vandalism. If another article is created for a person named Kevin Cornwall, it will go at a disambiguated name, and once that is done, a decision can be made as to whether there is a primary topic or not, and whether a disambiguation page is needed. But, and here's the rub, I saw the content you were replacing the article with, and you do not appear to be notable in the sense we use that word on Wikipedia, i.e., the subject of substantive treatment in in independently published, real world, reliable sources. Do not take that as an insult. I and most people are not notable. Wikipedia is not a social networking site; not a place where anyone can have an article; it is an encyclopedia, with all that that implies. If you wouldn't expect to have an entry in encyclopedia Britannica, you probably shouldn't expect to have an article here. Please see our conflct of interest guideline as well as the requirements for sourcing content, writing with a neutral point of view, our prohibition on original research and this page about autobiographical entries. The article you were writing, at least in the form it was in (if at a proper title) would simply have been speedy deleted, probably under section A7 of the criteria for speed deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes you made to the established Wikipedia:Notability (people) would likely be better discussed on the talk page before adding such a large chunk to existing policy. I appreciate your WP:BOLD efforts, but such large changes are almost always reverted until there has been discussion on the matter. I will start a section with your proposals on the talk page, and invite you to discuss these additions to the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline. Thanks, and Cheers ;) — Ched :  ?  23:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:Regarding your proposed changes at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Unique names, I think it's best if you just let this drop before you take up any more of anyone's time. You have now heard from at least 6 editors in good standing (Fuhgettaboutit, Jennavecia, Ale_jrb, Philosopher, Ched Davis, and myself) that changing the title of the Kevin Cornwall page is not necessary, and it's clear that this consensus is not going to change any time in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, it's disruptive to be stirring up trouble at a major Wikipedia guideline just because of one article that you don't like. To be honest, I still don't understand what you're upset over, except maybe the slim possibility that someone will search for "Kevin Cornwall" to look up information about you and will find a soccer player instead; that's not a problem, though, because it's clear from the first sentence that they are not the same people. Finally, as all the editors above have already stated, there is no need to change the title of the Kevin Cornwall page because there is not, and probably never will be, an article about you, since you do not meet the notability guidelines: regardless of how important you think your work is, you have not received significant attention in WP:third-party sources like major newspapers or other media outlets. I don't see what you hope to accomplish by continuing this discussion, and since so many editors have already said "no" to you then I suggest you just give it up rather than continuing to forum shop and take up more and more editors' time. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:I can agree with what you say on principles (certainly not with not with the recourse to personal aspersions) - with one exception. Being a professional athlete, with no other distinction, is no more notable than a profession fireman. If I'm not notable (and I have appeared in major publications in my own trade), then neither is Kevin Cornwall. It's not only personal, valuing sports above other occupations isn't right, making of WP a messenger of cultural values that, I at least, don't want imparted to my kids. What do think, more important for you kid to be a professional athlete than a doctor or teacher?Kcornwall (talk)

::Let me try one last time. We don't overwrite existing articles and our naming conventions having nothing to do with notability. If someone had created an article about you before the article on the sports figure, and it remained, and the sports figure came here trying to first move that article to a disambiguated name before any other Kevin Cornwall article existed, and when that didn't work, tried to overwrite that article on you, I would take exactly the same action and tell them the same things I've been telling you, apparently without you taking in one word. We don't disambiguate against the possibility of future creation of articles that do not exist now, and you may not overwrite an article with an existing edit history in violation of the GFDL to place an article about yourself in its stead.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the main reason you want this change is so that when people look up Kevin Cornwall (for example) they will know immediately that it's about a different person. What you're forgetting is that this is already taken care of, without changing the title. It's abundandly clear from the very first sentence (even the first couple words) of the article that it's about a different person, and no one could possibly be confused by it. In general, the first sentence of an article—not the title—is what is meant to define the article's topic, and there are pretty clear guidelines about how the first sentence should be written (see WP:LEDE#First sentence). Article titles are not necessarily meant for defining the article subject; the only reason for disambiguation parenthesis is that Wikipedia software requires every article to have a unique title. When there is no other Kevin Cornwall article and the first sentence of the article already makes it abundantly clear which Kevin Cornwall this article is about, there is no need for a disambiguating title. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You've already had this explained to you above. If you disagree with the notability guidelines, discuss it on the talk page. If you continue to make unilateral changes to the page, you will be blocked from editing. لennavecia 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What's unilateral? I made the suggestion in the talk page based on the discussion that was there and the discussion that ensued showed general agreement. Do you have another opinion?Kcornwall (talk)

:I just blocked you per Jenna's warning, but after inspecting the talk page (which I should have done more carefully before blocking), I unblocked, since you do appear to be making an attempt at consensus. My apologies for the block, but please do make sure that you have consensus before making changes like this (I do not see the "general agreement" to which you refer). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:Kcornwall, I'm am mostly in agreement with your suggestion, but you can't just make a suggestion on the talk and then go do it. You have to wait for discussion to take place and general agreement to result. لennavecia 17:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::No, there is absolutely not consensus...the WP:ATHLETE debate is one of the oldest arguments at Wikipedia and the discussion at the talk page is far from having reached any agreement. If it were up to me, I would have blocked you for edit warring here (making a change to WP:ATHLETE without consensus, then restoring it when another editor reverted you and asked you to keep to the discussion), since you have already been disruptive at that page earlier this month (with your "unique names" change). But another admin has already decided you don't need to be blocked just yet, so you're fine for now.

::Still, I highly suggest that you refrain from editing Wikipedia:Notability (people) directly. You have edited it wrongly a few times already, so it will be better for all parties if you stick to the talk page (making suggestions as you see fit) and leave the direct editing up to uninvolved editors. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that potentially-controversial changes like that be discussed first on the talk page. Eubulides (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Image:Information.svg Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to :God, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Changing a proper noun used to describe a concept shared by a number of religion to a common noun that only overlaps with aforementioned concept is far from minor. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You say 'A concept can't be a proper noun.' I don't think I agree, and I certainly don't think anyone's managed to produce a conclusive argument.

Please sign your posts. I'd prefer if you kept discussions of this sort to the relevant talk page: Talk:God.

AlexTiefling (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

:Kcornwall, the article God is not specifically about the Christian conception of God, that would be "God in Christianity."

:Your belief that the capitalization is specifically Christian is not shared with you by Bahais, Deists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Unitarian Universalists, and other religions that believe in a transcendent deity (as well as Freemasonry, which isn't a religion but a compliment to any theistic religion). Except for the most bigoted members of those religions (and Christianity), those religions do generally believe that they more or less are concerned with the same transcendent deity, even if they do not agree at all on Its nature, qualities, or relationship to existence. And in English, "God" (with a capital G) is the term used to refer to that shared transcendent deity. That is the assumption of all but the most fringe theologians, scholars of comparative religion, and even atheist writers.

:Because of your rather specific focus on Christianity (as if it has a monopoly on God and religion, like it's some sort of anti-atheism instead of a distinct belief system), I cannot imagine you even considered those other religions' existence (much less their beliefs). Not considering those religions' beliefs when discussing a shared trait among those religions would leave you about as qualified to edit articles relating to shared theology as Ken Ham is to speak on biology.

:You will not receive the go-ahead from me or from anyone else on the site to decapitalize God. MOS:CAPS#Religion (which says to capitalize God when referring to the transcendent deity) is in place because it represents a social contract with the backing of the majority of the site's users. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)