![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Ah, I never even noticed the section - sorry about that. Thanks for protecting and letting me know :) -- aktsu ( t / c) 02:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Now hopefully we can resolve issues without needless edit warring and BLP violations. :D Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Kevin. I wasn't aware that just because an article had previously been prodded, means it no longer can be tagged for speedy deletion. Surely if the criteria apply, they apply whether or not it was prodded? (I've also had a look through the guidelines and cannot find anything where it discusses this). Quantpole ( talk) 11:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I was just curious if you were still interested in mediating, or at least offering an opinion regarding the dispute(s) at ME talk. I've said this many times, but I truly am considering a BLP noticeboard and possibly filing an incident report if this is not resolved soon. I hate the courtish process of those kinds of forums but I cannot seem to identify another alternative. Let me know what you think! Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In my view, I am doing my best to stay on discussion and have tried to direct the conversation towards the first steps that you outlined first, but I am sure my responses have gotten off-topic as well. If you could clarify about my problematic editing, I would try to correct. I am interested in your form of dispute resolution or another, I would just hope for a resolution to one of these processes that doesn't lead to another process in two weeks.-- 76.214.104.121 ( talk) 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You wrote: "Changed protection level for "Theodore Kaczynski": Persistent and significant violations of [[WP:BLP|policy on biographical articles] by multiple IPs, please consult with me before unprotecting"
I saw one IP add he word "penis" randomly, one IP try to add some spam links, and a whole lot of nothing else. Unless there have been multiple edits that have been completely erased from the history so there are no records that anything happened in the first place I see nothing like hat you are claiming. What are you calling a BLP violation, let alone "persistant" and "significant" examples of it? DreamGuy ( talk) 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I got your note, and I've been watching the page. The dispute seems blown out of proportion, particularly by one of the editors (Wikifan). I may make comments from time to time (for example, when bad ideas come up on how to organize the article) , but I don't expect to be deeply engaged. Also, I'm going away for several days. NPguy ( talk) 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done. If this is sent to DRV against WP:BLP, please drop me a note on my talk or via email as soon as possible in case I miss the note on your own talk page. Thanks. rootology ( C)( T) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reason to believe 76.214.104.121 and 68.251.184.4 are the same person. Both have been involved at ME and freedom house. Today I was asked to "recuse" from editing by 76.21.104.121 at FH. Diff. full discussion. After reverting an edit by 68.251.184.4, he responded with this rationale in history i thought you were agreeing to at least temporarily leave my edits alone. I did a geolocate for both addresses, and the ISP is in the same state and city. You'll have to click on their users and scroll down to "geolocate" to see the link. The site doesn't allow unique pages, every hit is simply listed as [1]. Could this pose a problem for the mediation? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Your "Note - if I have protected a page with the summary..." comment tails off into nothing at the top of your talk page, so forgive me if I'm missing an obvious point, but why have you semi-protected John Cooper Clarke with a summary of "Persistent and significant violations of policy on biographical articles by multiple IPs"? The last IP edit was in mid-March, and checking the article history I can't find a single anonymous-IP BLP-violation edit to the article in the past two years. -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin - I'm curious to know why you removed Dougweller's notification on the Markoff talk page about the block he made. Seems to me that it is relevant for other editors who have been dealing with him to know, given the edit history and I've seen similar notices many times on article talk pages. I assume you have a reason, so I'm not undoing it, but I am interested to know why. Thanks - and thanks for coming in and helping out there. Tvoz/ talk 07:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You say "significant and persistent" BLP violations. There has been two vandalism edits (today, May 5) in a year+. Where is this persistent vandalism? Grsz 11 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask you to re-create the article on the Sexual abuse scandal in Worcester diocese. The scandal really occured and there are plenty of sources that are not attacks against anyone. See for example this National Catholic Reporter article [7] about the abuser who got 50 years in jail. It is a fairly notable scandal, and the page is mostly modeled on the article Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese. ADM ( talk) 03:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have also deleted Thomas Dupre for the same reasons. Again, If reliable sources are supplied to back up the material, I will restore. Kevin ( talk) 03:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The IPer involved in the mediation as "reported" me at incidents. I personally find this disturbing, but I'd appreciate your opinion. Does this pose a threat to our mediation process? Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) has been uncivil and making personal attacks in edits at Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei:. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Shold I respond to edits on the FH talk page? I was thinking the idea would be to end this dispute and not show up on articles or talk pages in which WF is involved as well, but maybe I am missing the point? Thanks,-- 99.162.60.191 ( talk) 23:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
We recently had an edit war on the Stallone page. I have take it to the discussion section of his page. PLease take a look and see what you think. There has to be some sort of middle ground here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.84.73 ( talk) 12:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I had some feedback on your comment. And a suggestion about modifying the article. Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 01:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin - Theo789 is back, ignoring consensus and editing as he pleases. He's quoted you in support of his position on neutrality on the talk page - I don't know if you agree with him or not, but I figure it's best if you speak for yourself and decide where you want your comments posted, so I figured I'd mention it here. Meanwhile, any suggestions about how to get him to understand how things work around here? He doesn't seem to have learned from his block, not surprisingly. Thanks Tvoz/ talk 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Kevin, I am asking for removal of protection (or additional editing) regarding the article on Owen citing information brought to light in the 'discussion' tab. The original article was fraught with misinformation, omitted information and self-bravado. The most recent 'corrected' article is nearly as bad. Please read the discussions in the Article regarding Owen. In fairness, the page should reflect all of the aspects of this person, not just the positive ones. If no middle ground can be found, I ask that the article be deleted completely. There are plenty of bona fide and citeable references to back the claim that the article for Owen is very one-sided. This man is no saint and has hurt many people with his business practices. I see no reason why pointing out his business dealings in anyway is a violation of BLP. I assure you, Wikipedia has a responsibility to its readers to entitle them to all of the information available in a biography, good and bad :) . Cheers! 76.113.56.175 ( talk) 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Protection was, as Wknight observed, unjustified here, even under the most liberal interpretation of our protection policy, and I have no doubt that a consensus for unprotection will be borne out at RFPP. It is only right, though, that I offer you the opportunity to unprotect; please let me know (here is fine) when you've a moment whether you will unprotect or whether you'd prefer that I take the issue to RFPP in order that a broader discussion might be had. Thanks, 68.76.147.212 ( talk) 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you also unprotect the Larry Bird article? I looked over the history, and it's not like there's like 7 IP's vandalising the article every day!! I've seen articles getting locked up until 2010 here...you might be interested in reading my subpage about this. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 05:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
How is this an interaction between User:Abtract and User:Alastair_Haines? The diff does not indicate that it is a violation of the arbitration (although it could be -- the complainant should have included a second diff showing that though). -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, there seems to be no talking sense to Wikifan on the ElBaradei article. We've all tried, but to no avail. It seems like a waste of time. I'm ready to give up. NPguy ( talk) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
By strict path policy, I mean justifying extreme disputes and accusations with policy and accurate information. For example, many statements directed at my posts were rather short-sighted and factually inaccurate. The following accusations were made by NPguy, IP, and you:
It is you who has engaged in, or acted indifferent towards, tendentious editing. Not a single user has confronted or remotely approached the policies and sources I listed. I am not arguing users do not believe a unique section is warranted. I've been explaining why that is wrong. Whatever repetition you've assumed is likely the product of me simply repeating arguments that went unrecognized or unseen. Even so, I still responded to off-topic and red-herring accusations, which derailed discussions and forced us back. If you could please examine the sections I linked in "random section break" and come back with a dispute that goes beyond "user x, x, and x believes a unique section is not warranted" please do. I've requested you do this 4 times now. Take your time. :D If you have a specific dispute, please quote it in exact-form. If you deny the violations/accusations I mentioned above the have been asterisked, list them now. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Desiree Washington, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiree Washington. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. PirateSmackK Arrrr! 08:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I posted a request to extent protection status here. I plan on submitting a request to MEDCAB (endorsed by the editors) soon but in the meantime would you endorse a protection extension until then? The lock expires 2 days. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 07:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Wikifan12345 ( talk) 07:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why you made this edit at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert? At the bottom of that page used to be the words "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate". Those words seem pointless if the entire page is blanked. I, for one, would like the page to be reinstated please. HWV258 04:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the original edit has been undone. I support that action. Please note that that's two editors who believe that the evidence in this case should remain visible. I'm happy to discuss it further, but I request that the page remains visible during the discussion and subsequent RfC (if necessary). HWV258 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not know that, about the <>on talk pages, they seem to be working on the ones I used. Whippletheduck ( talk) 06:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I have not done anything to the page since this morning. But I am prepared to make a case against the people that are clearly trying to spike this story, they are just as guilty if not more so: the edits I am putting in have met Verification, NPOV, and whatever the other one was as far as an edit against a Biography of living person goes, so I am well within my rights to report them for edit warring, because they are clearly trying to stop a legitimate edit that they personally don't like. Whippletheduck ( talk) 03:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
""Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.""
So, the question is, to both Kevin and to Sandor Clegane, you were saying one thing, both agreed, and now that the two issues you both specifically cited as making the entry are being met, you are now changing the argument to what now??? Whippletheduck ( talk) 04:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It is becoming clear to me that you do not intend to actually listen to what other editors are saying. Regardless of what you perceive as the merits of your argument, you have lost. There is a clear consensus against your position. Now you are resorting to casting aspersions on other editors rather than adressing their arguments. You should consider going away from that article, edit something else for a while. Kevin ( talk) 04:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey I'm having problems with the 3RR reporting page, where Im trying to report Sandor's 3R violation against me with.
Anyhow, the fact that both you and SANDOR have BOTH said that A) the original sources were not up to meet verification; and then BOTH agreed that it was UNDUE WEIGHT to use those to put in an entire paragraph. Both of you were VERY clear on that. So I have improved the sourcing and dropped it down to a single sentence and you guys are still against it. The only thing I seem to be running against is the Megan Fox (word that rhymes with VAN+word that rhymes with TOY) club here at Wikipedia, which by itself is almost laughable.
It's also funny because most of my 'critiques' were more generalized against the subject of the article- Sandor has accused me of being a conservitive, which is laughable and the fact that he has gone all out to stop this means either the VAN TOY argument which was the only thing I REALLY said against you people (and met as a compliment) But the fact that you guys are doing to me everything that I am NOT doing to you is also funny. Whippletheduck ( talk) 01:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I found the following was posted by you on one of our discussions.....""[quote]If you can present a reliably sourced report (i.e. mainstream media reports) then it could stay, so long as it passes the hurdle of undue weight, otherwise it must be left out. Kevin (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[/quote]
Seems like I accomplished both and you are still the one edit warring,...... Whippletheduck ( talk) 04:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurij Moskon... I was a little luckier than you in my search. The article will need Slovenian input. MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I made a mistake when I added the time of the eagle eye premiere, it was on September 16, 2008 - not 2009, thanks for correcting the mistake to the photos caption on the page. Ashley92995 ( talk) 05:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I'm well aware of that, hence me asking him to disclose them. Message blanked to avoid giving him any ideas. :-)
Jclemens (
talk)
23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Kevin, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Czechtalent Zlín has been removed. It was removed by Rigadoun with the following edit summary '(decline prod, a google search reveals lots of hits in Czech, that I can't evaluate but suggest that it may be notable -- this needs discussion)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Rigadoun before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 01:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Stop reverting without viewing the talk page. Conesus was reached there, as well as on my talk page with interested users, so STOP REVERTING WITHOUT DISUCSSING PLEASE. Pyrofork ( talk) 05:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
Megan Fox. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Pyrofork (
talk)
23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you protected Steven Cohen (soccer), would you mind protecting the page of his former show World Soccer Daily? Similar unsourced and POV information from IP addresses as was added to the Steven Cohen article has been added to the World Soccer Daily article. Thanks. Mikerichi ( talk) 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The BLP Barnstar | |
Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches (in the happy event of your return)! ++ Lar: t/ c 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
Gucci Mane's article is missing the whole bit about how he shot at some people and was charged with murder. i made an account to fix it but i'm not going to make filler edits just to confirm my account.. please either unprotect so i can fix it, or fix it yourself, or ask someone else to do it.
"arrest" section is also all wrong, check out the citations
and yes IP edits can do plenty wrong, easy solution would be an approval system for IP edits, or delay so you could revert them before they go live.. current wikipedia is just broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingpants ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristen McNamara. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 ( talk) 20:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The BLP Barnstar | |
Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches (in the happy event of your return)! ++ Lar: t/ c 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
- welcome back to mopping tasks.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 10:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Kevin,
I obviously don't have any clue as to how to use wikipedia or else i wouldn't be posting here, but it looks like you deleted the tommy sowers article. I'm not really sure why that was. It met the primary notability criterion... how do you decide? At what point does a poltiical candidate go from being not worthy to worthy? I thougth it was when the became notable based on independent press? That seems to have happened to me... There are at least 10 online articles in the past month about the candidate...
Matth915 (
talk)
15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. I am leaving this message to you because you voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Rutterschmidt. The AfD was closed early because the article had been renamed to Black Widow murders during the discussion, and both Olga Rutterschmidt and its sister article Helen Golay have been merged into it. If you wish, please feel free to nominate this new article for deletion if you feel that the article does not merit a place on Wikipedia. Regards, NW ( Talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously I'm fine with closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arvin Nery as delete, but the IPs were different. Same ISP, but different IPs.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain how the sources discussed and linked to don't meet WP:N? Your basis for the close would seem to rely on your reading of the value of those sources so I think the close should touch on them. Thanks. Hobit ( talk) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel strongly one way or the other about this article, but the perceived BLP issue could have easily been removed without deleting the entire article. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Rosas as delete based on the sources being about Al Rosas' farm rather than about him. However, none of the AFD participants raised this as an issue. Based on the discussion in the article, these sources were accepted as supporting notability. Please review. Thanks. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Al Rosas. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Whpq ( talk) 13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, if you have a chance there is a question for you at the DrV... Hobit ( talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Twinkle failure. I'll have to wait until I get home later to fix it, unless you want to be a Really Nice Person and do it... :-) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I'd really appreciate it if you could answer a quick question. I'm trying to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines but the Ronald I. Meshbesher page is flagged. How can I get these flags removed? I have tried making the page more neutral in tone, adding credible sources, etc. Thanks in advance for your help. Lhc67
Hey - I sent you a couple of e-mails - did you get them? -->David Shankbone 23:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you think Stephanie Birkitt is notable only for the alleged affair with David Letterman. The Wikipedia article titled Stephanie Birkitt was there for a long time before the news of the affair broke. She appeared frequently on Letterman's show for a number of years. Didn't you ever see her on the show? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
What is "absurd" is your statement that Stephanie Birkitt was not known to the public until the recent revelations about Letterman's behavior. If that were true, the article would not have such a long history. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The temporary furore over at Global warming on cyclical variations / using the NYT as a source, seems to have abated (well, of course it's abated in the presence of a protect), but I think we have a solution (see down at the bottom of Talk:Global_warming#Note_cyclical_variations_which_lead_to_recent_cooling_trends) which is to ignore the larger question of suitability of newspapers as sources for solid science based articles (whatever one takes that to mean), and instead address the kernel that crystalized the dispute - to wit, replace the contentious NYT reference with the original source material. There seems to be support for this (and the absence of any disagreement), so ... could you unprotect the article again? If you're interested, I've got an updated version with the contentious reference replaced at User:Lissajous/Global_warming which is what I would replace the current (contentious?) version with. Lissajous ( talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I see it's unprotected. Thanks. Lissajous ( talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand and agree with you. No problem to delete. Sorry. Regi-Iris Stefanelli ( talk) 23:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Prior to your protecting and unprotecting of the global warming article, it was semi-protected. Did you mean to remove the semi-prot when you unprotected it? - Atmoz ( talk) 06:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I like your style. Why do you call yourself a "former administrator"? ƒ(Δ)² 16:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Another editor has created Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur), which has the same name as an article which was deleted earlier as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur). My first reaction is that the subject is notable, but the article is a mess. I am reluctant to invest time in it, though, if the article is going to be deleted. Could you take a look at the references and decide whether there is enough evidence of notability to make the article worth salvaging? -- Eastmain ( talk) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am the user who created the page for
Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur) - please elaborate on what the issue was with the most recent page deleted. I don't understand how "KEVIN" went through every reference in my most recent version and saw "nothing at all that would indicate that he notable." The articles clearly validate the stated experiences of Mr. Andrew Bentley and not sure what I am missing here.
Please advise
Hyim1 (
talk)
16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Harry
Hi. I was just commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination) and when I went to save I saw that you already speedied it. Since the original afd took place the case has received major coverage by abc news, I believe that this expanded coverage meets the first of the 'valid reasons for recreating a deleted page' under WP:RPDA. It may again be deleted but IMO it should be able to go through AfD again. Thank you J04n( talk page) 02:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted the Samantha Henderson page without giving me a chance to move the information to my sandbox. How can I recover that info? Vermiculite ( talk) 02:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from List of programs broadcast by RedeTV!, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Smallman12q ( talk) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for semi-protecting this page. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 08:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Allied Artists International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/ contrib 01:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey Kevin- do you mind handling User:Mariah-Yulia's concern in this section on my page? I think your AGF-o-meter is higher than mine on this, so I think you'd do a better job at it than me. tedder ( talk) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, the photo is legitimate on the "21 Magazine" webpage. If you have any questions, please talk to me first before putting up a deletion notice. I would appreciate it! Thank you! Have a wonderful day! Modelmanager ( talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Kevin, take a look at Vogue (Magazine), they have a cover on their wiki page amongst others. You confirmed my page yesterday which I do appreciate, now you are using up my time trying to finish up this page. I am allowed to place covers on the Wiki page. Have the owner of Wiki contact me directly if he has a problem with it. Otherwise, please let me finish this page, so I can move onto my next project. Thank you! Modelmanager ( talk) 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Hi Kevin, ok thanks for the tip, I will follow that procedure Modelmanager ( talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Look I ignored one WP:BLP rule and you start labelling me as a bad editor? Or what did you try to say when you wrote "Well thanks for letting me know what kind of editor you are". I have 1,883 "Unique articles edited" and without me a lot of "Ukrainian" articles would be out of date, I do not deserve this kind of attitude.
What the hell, millions of other editors have ignored those rules before me. Yes people on wikipedia do ignore WP:BLP, if you have a problem with that contact Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. I (and others) will listen to them; I won't listen to you since your behaviour is selective ( Roland Burris kids are still mentioned in his article!), unrespectfull and just the opinion of 1 administrator (the opinion of 1 administrator is not consensus either!). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not say/think you are a dick, I tried to say I was/am not a dick; clearly I offended you and apologise for that, but it was not my intention! I only choose that picture cause it reflects the way I would like editors to work like, I died not try to give another message with it. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for chipping in on Marc Sinden. It's difficult to avoid running into 3RR when there's a determined sock around with an agenda. And he's back again.... Little grape ( talk) 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I appreciate your support on the 21 Magazine page. However, other Admin people decided to delete vs. actually help the page. I spent hours researching and trying to build the page. I didn't start the page two years ago, but they decided to delete the entire page anyway. I am very frustrated to say the least. How can a build this page right and avoid the onslaught of Admin people trying to tear it down? Thanks for your time Modelmanager ( talk) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Well not really. Just wondering if i could get a userfication of Wadih Saadeh? I promise to be a good boy & run it past you, DRV or whaterver if it turns out that it might be salvageable. Thanx Misarxist ( talk) 13:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Please reconsider your close of this AFD.
First, I disagree that the applicability of BLP1E was established conclusively, or not refuted, however you want to phrase it; there certainly wasn't consensus that this was such a case. It's particularly difficult to push Bardwell into that category, where the relevant "event" is something he did based on his usual policy. BLP1E states that "[i]f the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." If the "event" here is Bardwell's refusal to officiate an interracial marriage, obviously he played the most substantial role in that "event", because it occurred solely because of his own conduct and beliefs. He is not "likely to remain[ ] low profile" given that state and federal officials are calling for his resignation or sacking; there is a federal lawsuit proceeding against him; and he has also given at least one interview to a national news network, and probably will give more. It is far from clear on its face that WP:BLP1E applied here, and there certainly was not a consensus that it did within the AFD.
Second, even where BLP1E applies, the solution isn't necessarily to delete outright, but rather to perform "a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name," which all presupposes that there is a separate article about the "event" ("a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted"). Many of the comments in the AFD were, in fact, urging that the article be refactored as an article on the "event," however characterized, and many of those expressly urging deletion nevertheless conceded that the "event" was notable. At a minimum, this should have been done by moving the article to an appropriate title.
In conclusion, I believe the best result would have been to close as "no consensus", given the lack of agreement and the lack of clear applicability of policy. This of course would not preclude a later AFD if the story does not develop any further and once the interest has calmed down (see largely on point comments of closer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident).
Thanks for your time, and I await your response. Postdlf ( talk) 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, perhaps you can help on the right and wrong of this: The source for the Marc Sinden trivia - which you reverted - of him living in The Bishops Avenue (which is true) also states that he is in a relationship with Heather Mills (which is untrue and/or he has repeatedly denied) http://realestalker.blogspot.com/2009/09/heather-mills-is-flipping-out-on.html This is why I had not put it as the source, as it contains both stories. Can I include it without falling foul of an editor with a POV on Mills? Captainclegg ( talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Provided the user was the person credited as the creator so the image was valid in the first place, deleting something released into the public domain that is potentially useful for educational purposes merely because the creator changed his/her mind is not in keeping with Wikipedia's mission, right? Hekerui ( talk) 21:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have witness that User:AurangzebMarwat has removed the AfD tag from his article Mullazai thrice and citation needed tag for twice, without providing any reference, by himself, through edit. Despite warning him, he did it again. Please take some serious action. The user wasl also previous blocked for doing such with his another (thice) created article Sarfaraz Khan Marwat. You culd see and visit his talk-page. 119.153.57.156 ( talk) 04:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You removed the category "Crime in Louisiana" from the article " 2009 refusal of interracial marriage in Louisiana." Your explanation was that "no-one has been charged or convicted of any crime in relation to this." But see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8310509.stm (and there are other sources). The ACLU alleges that Bardwell knowingly broke the law. Doesn't that sound as if he has been "charged" with a crime? The governor has made a similar statement and called for Bardwell to be fired. A civil (although not criminal) suit has has been filed. Rammer ( talk) 03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Kevin … Less that 24 hours after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar was closed as Delete, one of the sockpuppets - Robroams ( talk · contribs) - has recreated it … I've tagged it with {{ uw-repost}}, but would you please WP:SALT it? Thnx!
Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Please move the article Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Greg Augustine. I do not feel any need to create wikidrama at a DRV over your good faith closing with minutes of NW's relisting, but do feel that in the incubator others may be able to strengthen it and address the weak delete comments. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, I'd like you to consider refraining from closing BLP AfDs until some of the discussion about them level out. You seem to be working to be beat of a drummer that's not entirely matched to current consensus and policy on these topics. "I disagree with relisting BLPs, which is why I have been systematically closing them where I see them." is one example. I realize that I'm coming at this from a viewpoint that your view on the issue is wrong and therefor I'm biased. But I think admins need to be careful about taking admin actions in areas they have strong opinions. Hobit ( talk) 04:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
N.B Meitei seems to have slipped by my watchlist too! Didn't see it until I'd started reviewing the contributions of the various socks. Bongo matic 09:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{ talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.
Please forgive me if I am doing this incorrectly. I am new to this, but I am very concerned and upset..
I am officially protesting your deletion of Ted Andrews' page. Ironically, it was taken down the day that he unexpectedly died. Your reasoning was absolutely misinformed. He was not self-published, but had dozens of books published by Llewellyn Worldwide and others. http://www.llewellyn.com/author.php?author_id=2605
He is a widely known, highly respected wise elder in many esoteric paths, including shamanic practices, Earth spirituality, Nature lore, and mythology. He does, in fact, meet just about every one of the criteria:
The evaluation given on the page couldn't have been MORE wrong.
Please restore this wise and gentle man's entry. This is such an injustice, especially at a time when his many admirers are grieving his sudden death.
Thank you for kindly reconsidering. Owlsdaughter ( talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has been brought to deletion review by another editor, not on the grounds of the merits of the subject, but on grounds of the early closure. You may want to comment.See [15] DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Contesting deletion of Emilio B. Moure wikipedia page. Contrary to accusations, Moure commands notability not only in Knights of Colubmbus but also in Cuban American community and lay Catholic community. In addition, Moure's nonprofit leadership expands beyond his full time executive role at the Knights of Columbus to a post on the board of the National Fraternal Congress of America. Can provide secondary source documentation attesting to affiliation with other organizations, namely the National Fraternal Congress of America and the Wheelchair Foundation. Please undelete. ( pvphl ( talk) 15:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
I agree with your recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bamford closure. I am only puzzled by a detail. Why the article has been deleted and then recreated as a redirect, instead of having been redirected directly? I was thinking of maybe using some of the material in the history to merge in the Trevor Brennar article, and this way it is impossible. Thanks! -- Cyclopia talk 13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You closed the AfD as delete, but you didn't delete the article. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to explain your closes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hivehom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitar (fictional planet) and the similar articles where you just said "Delete" without further explanation? In particular, why did you think my suggestion of redirect was inappropriate--there was a second comment to that effect also. It would have helped to give a rationale in the first place. Could you please respond on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You recently deleted an article I submitted. So I created this article at: User:JLRedperson/HP_BTO_Software
I added more Wikipedia internal links, cited outside references and worked to improve the article based on your feedback. I also asked for comments and suggestions from the editors in the WikiProject computing. I received only one suggestion, to change the bulleted lists into prose, and so I made those changes.
Full disclosure: I work for HP, however, I am a journalist by academic background and wrote this article as a neutral, objective submission. The idea being to state the name of the product and what it does—with no hype or advertising. This is similar to Microsoft’s page that lists Microsoft_Office_Excel as "a spreadsheet-application written and distributed by Microsoft for Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X. It features calculation, graphing tools, pivot tables and a macro programming language called VBA (Visual Basic for Applications)."
The goal of creating this article to add to the quality and quantity of information about computing technology on Wikipedia. Because HP bought several enterprise software companies during the past four years, this article attempts to help classify the portfolio to aid Wikipedia readers. Also after publication of this article, we will be able to direct Wikipedia users to this article from the pages that currently exist but are no longer accurate such as Opsware. This will add to the body of knowledge of the types of ways that software can help companies better manage their data centers, similar to the IBM pages that describe Tivoli and WebSphere software for example. (See: IBM_Tivoli_Identity_Manager and WebSphere)
I welcome all comments and suggestions for improvement. Although I have edited approximately 9 articles on Wikipedia, I am still new at this. Therefore, any insights are appreciated.
I look forward to your feedback on this new article. JLRedperson ( talk) 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Thank G-D for someone with a brain. Unfortunately when I started that mess I wasn't using mine. Д-р СДжП,ДС 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I would like to thank you, instead of rant about why you have deleted it, because after reading in my user talk page Speedy deletion nomination of ZaRP! I would have asked an admin to delete it. You have saved the trouble of running around Wikipedia to find an admin currently online. HCV= 04:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellcatV ( talk • contribs)
Hello Kevin, From reading your close, it seemed that you agreed that this article met our guidelines (WP:N in this case) for article inclusion. Given that the !vote count was quite close and the delete !votes provided very little in the way of policy-based arguments for deletion, I don't see the consensus for deletion (I'd say no consensus leaning quite hard for keeping, though given I was one of the !vote keep folks, I may have a biased perspective). Any chance you'll take another look at it and reconsider that close? Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 06:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
User_talk:Steve_Smith#Deleting_material_from_talk_pages Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 13:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The editor who nominated this AfD edited it in the past to be as NN as possible when there were many more references than were in the article you deleted. It was absolutely beyond the pale of any understanding of what NPOV means. This is my last comment on this matter unless I am invited to respond to anything.
Revision as of 16:28, 18 February 2009 Raymond Joseph Cormier
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Raymond Joseph Cormier is a self-proclaimed Prophet in Canada. He has run for a seat in the Canadian House of Commons as an independent, and once ran for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Contents [hide] * 1 Arrests * 2 Pilgrimages * 3 Politics * 4 References Arrests He was arrested on a number of occasions in the late 1970s for disturbing the peace in Downtown Ottawa. He was convicted, and later breached his probation and was sent to jail.[1][2][3][4][5] On the first day of televised debate in the House of Commons, security guards removed Cormier from the gallery.[6][7][8] In 1985, on Remembrance Day, Cormier was arrested and fined $250 for causing a disturbance. [9][10][11] Pilgrimages In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon. Four newspapers and Maclean's wrote stories about his journey.[12][13][14][15][16] In 1986 he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.[17][18][19][20] Politics Cormier ran in the 1984 federal election. He received 71 votes out of 40,000 as an independent in Ottawa Centre.[21] He ran again in Ottawa Centre as an independent in the 1997 federal election. He received 91 votes out of 50,000.[22][23][24][25] References 1. ^ "Preacher Arrested on Mall" Ottawa Citizen 3 September 1977 2. ^ Dave Rogers, "Second police warning for God's emissary", Ottawa Citizen, 10 September 1977, A2. 3. ^ "Emissary from God undaunted", Ottawa Citizen, 22 October 1977, pg 2. 4. ^ "The self-styled prophet hauled off Mall again", Ottawa Citizen, 3 November 1977, pg5. 5. ^ "Mall 'prophet' jailed again", Ottawa Citizen, 5 November 1977, pg 5. 6. ^ "Prophet hauled out of Commons gallery", Ottawa Citizen, 18 October 1977, pg 3. 7. ^ "Gagged protester gets heave-ho", Ottawa Today, 18 October 1977. 8. ^ "Masked protester returns", The Ottawa Citizen, July 15, 1978 9. ^ Jane Taber "'Prophet' fined for shouting at Nov. 11 service", Ottawa Citizen, 3 January 1986 10. ^ "Anti-war speech costs man $250", Globe and Mail, 3 January 1986 11. ^ "Cormier condamné", Le Droit, 3 January 1986 12. ^ Steve St. Laurent. "Visiting 'prophet' no average preacher", Calgary Herald, 18 July 1981, A11. 13. ^ Cathy Lord "Visions compelled search for God", Edmonton Journal, 25 July 1981,G13. 14. ^ Leslie Cole "Self-proclaimed prophet: Showmanship not his style", Whitehorse Star, 26 August 1981, pg 3 15. ^ Nicholas Read "'Divine gifts' inspire ex-executive to tramp the land with a message", Vancouver Sun, 3 October 1981 16. ^ Maclean's Magazine, pg 40 31 August 1981, People Section. 17. ^ Richard Caron "Raymond Cormier sillonne le pays pour precher Dieu", Le Soliel, 28 July 1986 18. ^ Elizabeth Hanton "Prophet sees Canada as the new Israel", The Halifax Daily News, 11 August 1986 19. ^ Sylvia Reddom "Shares Faith With Canadians - Religion More Than Going To Church Says Travelling Born Again Christian", The Charlottetown Guardian, 20 August 1986 20. ^ Emily Dyckson "Wandering prophet shares his faith", The Weekend (St. John's), 30 August 1986 21. ^ History of Federal Ridings since 1867 22. ^ Kernaghan R. Webb Focus Magazine September1984 'RJC: Cormier makes people nervous. Especially authorities.' 23. ^ Elections Canada On-Line | General Information 24. ^ Kathleen Patterson "Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil" The Kansas City Times pg. 3A 13 September 1976 25. ^ Robert W. Butler "Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction" The Kansas City Times 2 November 1976 |
Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 21:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
What I find most disturbing about the process is four delete opinions were based on this comment
I think its borderline, and if the subject weren't causing such issues, I'd probably let it slide. Wikipedia is not paper. But self-declared prophet who did what, ran for office and lost? Uh, can we say Gastrich? Not notable, seriously. His sources are small newspapers from the seventies for the most part; we can look for someone local to the papers to go read the microfiche but I'm not seeing notability here, more like sourced Local Character. Good for them. My home town had a local character too, and I have not (and will not) write a WP article on him. If you take a look, the "news" seems to be mostly Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing. This is NOT notability. -- Atama頭 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The very next comment below that is this, which no one bothered to read, evidently.
My error on the sources; thank you for your AGF. I'm still thinking that he's more "color" than "substance" but clearly what we need here is more input from other editors. This is a borderline case at best, one I would not like to close. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As I know how to read, four delete opinions were based on an erroneous statement in the 1st place. Where is the fairness in the process? Did the closing Administrator even look at that? Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you deleted the article that I had nominated for AfD, but there was a slight problem. Cyber Security virus still exists, because the article was moved after AfD was proposed. So the redirect was what was actually deleted, not the article itself. Could you go ahead and delete the article? Thanks. Netalarm talk 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason for this revert? Tim Song ( talk) 02:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of the Fort Hood shooting/massacre as your reason was unfair. I never suggested that any killing by a Muslim was automatically Islamic terrorism. However, if a devout Muslim yelling "Allahu Akbar" before killing 13 people and wounding 31 others does not qualify as Islamic terrorism, then we are setting the bar way too high. Screaming "Allahu Akbar" prior to unproviked violence carries the meaning "I am Muslim and I am killing you because you are not Muslims." Jwbaumann ( talk) 06:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a letter to The Citizen taking exception to his projections. I sent a copy to the Prime Minister, all Opposition Party leaders, The Pope´s Ambassador to Canada and all Princes of the Catholic Church in Canada, the Leaders of all other Christian Denominations, and to Jewish and Islamic Religious Leadership. The only one to reply was the Hon. Joe_Clark, Leader of the Official Opposition at the time.
You can read this 31 year old projection of what I saw coming relative to this discussion in 1978. The Citizen did not publish it. You might need a magnifying glass even after the expanded image to read the script, the three images down, three on the left. I was much younger then, interpreting the world through the prism of the Bible of things appearing darkly in the Future. These days I learn about it in the secular media as it´s happening. I hope this provides some backgrounder information to this discussion. The reality IS, God IS Great! [16] Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The attack was a terrorist attack, carried out by a Muslim terrorist who listened to and followed a radical Imam, and did his best to kill as many people as possible. Had this be a Christian shouting "Jesus Saves" and opened up on Mulims, everyone would be screaming about Christian terrorists! mab91c —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.124.22 ( talk) 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well; you've made yourself clear, Kevin me'lad, but using vulgarities is frowned upon by most in civilized talk. Perhaps you could get out of your shorts, bathrobe, & slippers, get up out of the basement, and go see if your mommy needs a nice cup of tea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.124.22 ( talk) 13:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your response to the discussion you began on my talkpage. Thanks Kevin McCready ( talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The attack was a terrorist attack, carried out by a Muslim terrorist who listened to and followed a radical Imam, and did his best to kill as many people as possible. Had this be a Christian shouting "Jesus Saves" and opened up on Mulims, everyone would be screaming about Christian terrorists!
I saw your revert on Brittny Gastineau, quick question about it. While it is unsourced (and I don't remember it in the movie), my take on this information is that not only isn't it notable, but it violates WP:UNDUE because there's no context whatsoever to the quote. Some editors want to push what they see as the "truth," but without knowing if she was joking (in an obvious comedy movie), and without any kind of reliable sources establishing notability, it doesn't belong. What's your take on that? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker ( talk) 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Re your close of this AfD -- Teitel has now been charged with an impressive array of offenses, stretching over many years: [17]. I wonder if you're inclined to revisit the notion that this one falls under BLP1E: the fact that some editors are inclined to see it that way doesn't make it so. This one feels an awful lot like no consensus. No big deal, I suppose -- it can be recreated as evidence of notability continues to accumulate. regards, Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A very surprising closure to me. Could you clarify:
I have said all I intend to say on this particular close. If you disagree with those whose interpretation of WP:BLP1E is different to yours, you will need to find another venue in which to take this up. There is a list of them (the editors) at the AfD. Kevin ( talk) 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
DePiep ( talk) 00:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I give up. Kevin ( talk) 01:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sniff Petrol. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Davepoth ( talk) 12:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. You closed the AfD on George Lee (British politician). I was v surprised that this article was not in Wikipedia - I've quickly recreated it from the Google cache in my Userspace and added some refs making the claims to notability (I think) pretty clear. I think this is probably ready for a Deletion Review but I'd really value your opinion on whether more work is needed on it first. Many thanks. NBeale ( talk) 13:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Please review Heydon Prowse discussion page. Per your suggestion of finding common ground, both parties have agreed that page should be reverted to pre-edit "war" to the revision of approx May 2009. Would you revert to this version or unlock the page? LondonFoggy ( talk) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Marie Poise ( talk) 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning - if you get a chance, could you review edit history of Clegg, particularly with reference to Marc Sinden, and perhaps advise on dragging the article back to some semblance of encyclopaedic content? Little grape ( talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
But I am trying to STOP the vandalism of this site. I am not trying to antagonise Little Grape at all, merely stop him/her from constantly deleting sourced material that doesn't suit his POV. I am undoing his wrong and inaccurate edits of sourced material. He tried to claim that the 'Relative Values' articles were in the Sunday Times, when they were in the Daily Mail. I have a copy in front of me! He claims that Debretts was not called 'Distinguished', yet if you look at the ISBN and the source that I used, it was then called that. It only changed its name recently. Please help to stop this apparent personal obsession that Little Grape has with deleting so much of the Sinden article. I cannot get away from the fact that it seems personal. But we have been here before and I thought (after your suggestion) that we had 'drawn a line' but apparently not... Captainclegg (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that advise about the vandalism. I was unaware of that. I will take more care with that in future. May I refer you to the Talk:The Bishops Avenue page where Little Grape has made it very clear that he must know where Sinden lives personally and even describes the house (which is more than I am aware of) surely proving that he must know Sinden and have some personal beef with him to be so specific. As I stated previously when all this kicked-off originally, I would be happy to 'draw a line', but Little Grape seems hell-bent on re-writing the facts to suit his aim. He has now incorrectly removed the word "Distinguished" from the reference to an honorary position held by Sinden at the British Humanist Association. I have not however corrected it for fear of falling foul of your ruling! But again, I appeal for your intervention. Captainclegg ( talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
1.) Angela Brooks (a Daily Mail column writer) wrote the regular series Relative Values in 1994. The particular article quoted is a full-page, two-fold interview with Donald Sinden and his son Marc, discussing his schooling, among many other things, from their respective viewpoints. It is a separate article from the Sunday Times article and in no way connected, as far as I can tell. I photocopied it from my local library. 2.) I included a sourced blog which stated that Sinden lived in The Bishops Avenue. ( http://realestalker.blogspot.com/2009/09/heather-mills-is-flipping-out-on.html) Kevin said this was unreliable and I have not argued the point or reverted it once this ruling was made. I did not write it or invent it. As in point 1 please stop shooting the messenger. 3.) Unlike Little Grape, who says above "I clearly know where Sinden lives" I am unaware of where Sinden now lives, or for how long. I would be interested to know how he does and with what accuracy. Perhaps he should declare his interest or real identity. 4.) As Little Grape has done his constant damnedest to out me (a serious Wiki offence, but no one has done anything about it...) I can now tell him that Yes, he is right, as I stated, I was in the 'Hey Jude' film. I am the girl standing behind and to the left of Paul, in the white dress, black belt and brown hair. THAT is how I know that the two Sinden brothers were in the film (who are behind and next to Ringo) and that is what I told Mark Lewisohn. Satisfied now? Sorry to disappoint you and your obsessive conspiracy theory. 5.) I would also suggest that the articles that have been so furiously tampered with by Little Grape are returned to their state of 24-hours ago and that the two of us are then excluded from any Sinden-related articles, as suggested. I would not have a problem with that. Captainclegg ( talk) 01:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll be back to deal with you pair tomorrow. In the meantime, you might consider that you are not helping either. Kevin ( talk) 07:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, is it possible that with the almost exclusively targeted deletion of any and all articles concerning Marc Sinden (including sourced material) and the very intimate knowledge of his travel plans, not as far as I can see published in any paper etc. Marc Sinden is currently in Australia, having just arrived there, all references to Ms Mills, even including his denials of any relationship with her and his home address I clearly know where Sinden lives - ...in a little semi-detached two-up two-down off the Finchley Road and has lived there for at least the last ten years that we are perhaps being manipulated into looking the wrong way at who Little Grape really is? Double-bluff, smoke & mirrors perhaps? I merely ask the question. Captainclegg ( talk) 12:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, PLEASE don't let this matter slip away... Captainclegg ( talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I reverted your removal an entry on the page but just noticed I mistyped my edit summary as "hardy adequate", which would not make sense. I meant to type "hardly inadequate". Just thought I'd explain. – Moondyne 07:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the identity controversy and i wrote my reasons to the articles talk page. Also i think that when you are doing BLP and removing large parts from the article it would be polite to add notify in the talk-page also. -- Zache ( talk) 18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Kevin, greatly appreciate your intervention between Marie Poise and logger9. I read you've come to one of the same questions I asked Marie, she refused to answer me. I'm not sure why she should change her mind. Both appear willing to discuss content, yet whenever a straight question appears, they duck and get personal (not always attacks, just personal in other ways). Marie wrote she doesn't want to answer me because even if we reach consensus at T:liquid, logger would continue his edits at other places. I should perhaps give up then, but imo this bunch of general articles (liquid, solid, glass, solution, etc) is simply to generally important. I think most can and should yet be improved. If anything, logger and Marie seem to agree about that.
My idea is this: there is an inactive physical chemistry wikiproject. Though I am not an expert in physical chemistry, I know a little about it and could restart the project, but only if logger and Marie agree to join too. I hope others will also jump in. We could then have general discussions about groups of articles, which (secondary?) sources to use for the general articles, how to distribute info over several articles, etc. This can only work if logger9 agrees not to insert new content without consensus at the project pages first. The two of them also need to get more constructive imho - that's why at first some supervision would be welcome. I'd like to propose this idea at the TP of liquid, but what's your opinion? Regards, Woodwalker ( talk) 05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, Would you either reopen this AfD or close it as no consensus? I can't see the article at this point, but I don't think there was consensus for that deletion (no !votes to delete...) Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I love your deletion summary for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 3, calling it "non-controversial" :) I mean, it is, but don't be surprised if certain people create controversy over it. -- NE2 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, Additional information was added to the article before it was closed, showing that Michael Solonoski indeed fits the qualifications for inclusion, as he is competing at the "highest level of his sport" 2010 United States Figure Skating Championships. He also has competed internationally twice. If his article was removed, other athletes such as Jordan Miller (figure skater) should be most definitely be removed, as they have even less notability in the sport. Additionally, a stub should be added for Daniel Raad, who is competing at the 2010 United States Figure Skating Championships as well.
If you could comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated Reverts at Solid, it would be much appreciated. Cheers, NW ( Talk) 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
While examining the editorial actions of a sockpuppet I ran across a number of bad faith nominations. This was one of the deletions I overturned after finding a significant number of sources pointing to its notability. Please let me know if you are not comfortable with this action. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 01:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, You recently deleted an article I submitted on the NASA Ames Research Center CIO Chris C. Kemp. I personally also work at NASA Ames and I am surprised to find this article be nominated for deletion, since it aims to provide a genuine and objective bio of a valuable member of the NASA family. I would like to work on bringing an article about Chris C. Kemp back as he is an important executive driving innovation inside the Agency (cloudcomputing) and I believe having a wikipedia article on Chris C. Kemp serves the important purpose of offering a trustworthy source about his background and career for US government officials. Could you provide me with guidelines on how to make it more appropriate for inclusion on wikipedia?
Thanks Navarenko ( talk) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoping, given the passage of two weeks as you stipulated, that you've had time for consideration. Kevin McCready ( talk) 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Kevin, At the AfD for the Christy Twins [22], you indicated that there was a clear consensus to delete. That one was a bit weird in that a number of people !voted twice. So after the relist by Tim there was only one new !vote to delete and one to redirect if I'm counting correctly. Could you look that over again and reopen the discussion? Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 05:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin! You closed the discussion about Megarex and Megarex (album). However, you didn't remove the tag from the former. The last is still tagged for deletion. Can you solve it? Thank you! Victor Silveira ( talk) 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Kevin - Your guidance is requested on the BLP Arthur Kemp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kemp
Your response has been the only reaction to the proposed revision of that article, as contained on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Kemp Talk:Arthur Kemp page.
As I am new to Wikipedia, does the lack of response mean acceptance of the revised article or will it get reverted if posted?
Many thanks for your time. TheFallenCrowd ( talk) 11:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help with my request on ANI. AndrewRT( Talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit confused by our close of these AfD. You say that the question is whether or not he meets WP:ATH. That is certainly a relevant question, but it isn't the only question. For a subject to be included, it must meet either the GNG or one of the more specific guidelines. I think it is a legitimate point of debate whether the GNG is met here and with a 2 to 2 !vote I don't see how you can say there is consensus that it is not met. As such, I would appreciate an explanation. Thanks, ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not ever send me a message telling me I cannot express an opinion in a discussion thread. If you don't like my opinion then post a counter-argument, if you cannot do that then shut up. scooteristi ( talk) 01:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I see that Fidel Castro has been on semi for over half a year, and I realize that continued protection for the remaining half-year may be warranted, especially for a BLP. But I'm wondering if (as User:Splash put it), we can "see how things are going". At least one anon seems interested in improving the article [23], and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other anons who simply haven't taken the extra step of voicing their concerns on the talk page. As Splash also said, "popular articles will always get vandalised", but I'm wondering if we can see whether anons' contributions add up to a net positive for the article--at least for the time being, while there's evidence of anon interest in the page. I have this article on my watchlist, and, if you decide to unprotect it, I'll be glad to let you or RPP know if the vandals start to dominate. Thanks, Cosmic Latte ( talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This AfD was relisted for discussion on 10 December 2009 but you closed it with delete one day later. Can you explain why you acted so prematurely? Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC).
Decided to edit the Marc Sinden article - immediate over rule by Little Grape virtually accusing me of being Sinden. I research Little Grape. Dozens of edit warring warnings and insane lunacy on Jonathan King article, Black and several more. Time someone flushed this crazy out of Wikipedia. Parnathus ( talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Kevin, i'm one of your Talk Page Stalkers. I'm just curious, why did you decide to rename? The Wordsmith Communicate 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I'm not criticizing or anything, based on recent activity I'd just like to see your input here:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Early closures if and when you have a chance.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω)
22:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. :) I noticed that you were the closing administrator on the above listed AfD, and I'd like to ask you to take a second look at the discussion. Your primary reason for deleting was BLP concerns over sourcing and inclusion criteria. However, as far as I understood matters, Wikipedia doesn't delete based on potential problems when there are other possible solutions, and in fact, has precident to not do that.
I'm just asking you to take another look at your decision on the AfD, and if you could, maybe explain why this case is different enough from the one I linked above for this to merit a delete and the other to merit a keep. Thank you! Lithorien ( talk) 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you please confirm you voted in ACE as user:kevin?-- Tznkai ( talk) 05:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean edit=autoconfirmed, move=sysop? Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 07:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You might want to undo your strike as things have been restored to what you had signed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering the fact that you suggested Mccready to appeal to ArbCom, I thought you might be interested to know that he has a case request out here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,
I noticed that you have used more than one signature..."Kevin" and Rdm2376. Are you the same person?
Wikipedia discourages using multiple accounts to make it appear that multiple persons support a contention. Ryoung122 22:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete Fake steve? If you delete that you should also delete Fake Steve Jobs however neither should really be deleted. Daniel Lyons is the writer of http://www.fakesteve.net/ thus the redirect is proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben b ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andria "Dreamz" Herd, you closed this as redirect when only one person suggested as such. This is not reflectant of the consensus driven discussions held at xfds. The reason I did not want this article redirected there was that the title wasn't a good search term for redirection there. Next time, if you would like to speak your opinion, please leave one, but don't close an AfD against consensus. Thank you. Tavix | Talk 22:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said, "Maybe I should grow a pair." I shall be interested to see what the fall-out is. :) Fences& Windows 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. By the way, Joe Moreno has wasted no time in crowing about the decision to delete the Shepherd article. He was obviously keeping a close eye on developments, and posted the news on at least two of his blogs (
here and
here) on the day of the deletion. In addition, the first comment on
this blog also bears his hallmarks, and links directly to one of those Moreno blogs I've just cited, which is why I've added the cautionary second comment. (By the way, note that this last blog is citing with qualified approval a non-self-published online
article by Shepherd.)
It's worth noting some of Moreno's blog comments:
'It is also very amusing that Simon Kidd accused Wikipedia editors of "collusion" on the AFD for the Kevin R. D. Shepherd article (
Ref). Needless to say, the only people factually shown of "colluding" were Simon Kidd, Alex Jamieson, Brian Steel (aka Ombudswiki) and Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits).'
'Moreno's past argument about Kevin R. D. Shepherd's non-notability has now been vindicated by multiple & independent Wikipedia editors who neutrally investigated the matter thoroughly. Simon Kidd, Alex Jamieson, Brian Steel (aka Ombudswiki) and Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits) banded together and attempted to deceive various Wikipedia editors by resorting to circumlocution and rhetoric. Needless to say, it didn’t work.'
'Now that Wikipedia deleted Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s profile (due to his non-notability), there is little doubt that Kevin R. D. Shepherd will soon write a foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe against Wikipedia that will invariably (and predictably) make accusations of "sectarian polemics". Kevin Shepherd upheld Wikipedia's views and policies when Moreno was banned on Wikipedia for exposing Mel Etitis and his Peter J. King Sockpuppet Cover-Up. Any argument that Kevin R. D. Shepherd may make against Wikipedia will ultimately compromise his former arguments against Moreno and Wikipedia!'
'In conclusion, the self-described "philosopher" Kevin R. D. Shepherd (who admitted he is not an academic) has been shown to be nothing more than a vanity self publisher. To Date: There have been no reliably sourced, third-party media references to Kevin R. D. Shepherd. This is an irrefutable fact that no amount of deflections, distortions or ad hominem attacks is going to change. It is Moreno’s personal opinion that Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s moralistic, puritanical, self-promoting, self-centered, self-serving, bigoted, narrow-minded, dogmatic and poorly researched views will keep him out of the Wikipedia spotlight for years to come.'
[all emphasis in the original]
For the record, although I have had occasional email contact with Alex Jamieson, I have never had contact of any kind with Brian Steel or Robert Priddy. And of course there has been no 'factual' revelation of collusion on my part. Similarly, Moreno's claim elsewhere that I have a sockpuppet account is mistaken. As I have already pointed out, I have retained my original pseudonymous Wikipedia account for a reason unrelated to the Shepherd case - this reason satisfied ArbCom, who registered the alternate account.
You may be interested to know that this issue originated in 2006, when Moreno (as user SSS108) took exception to the citation of one of Shepherd's books in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Shepherd was in complete ignorance of the objection at the time. The original argument can be seen on this page. Moreno was subsequently banned from Wikipedia, and since then he has created multiple websites and blogs as an alternative forum for his views. It now seems that anyone who has sided with Shepherd is a target. Shepherd's own version of events is presented here.
In my opinion, Moreno's prompt blogging only reinforces the suspicion that Wikipedia editors in sympathy with him were involved in the Shepherd AfD nomination. It seems to me that the horse is still whinnying!
Simon Kidd ( talk) 15:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You closed the AfD as Delete last November. I userfied the article at the request of User:Pohta ce-am pohtit. He added some references and has now restored the article to main space. The new refs seem to rule out a G4 deletion, but you may want to take a look and see if the case for notability has been made. If not, take whatever process steps that you think best. I personally think this is a Keep because of the major improvements. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Ah, I never even noticed the section - sorry about that. Thanks for protecting and letting me know :) -- aktsu ( t / c) 02:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Now hopefully we can resolve issues without needless edit warring and BLP violations. :D Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Kevin. I wasn't aware that just because an article had previously been prodded, means it no longer can be tagged for speedy deletion. Surely if the criteria apply, they apply whether or not it was prodded? (I've also had a look through the guidelines and cannot find anything where it discusses this). Quantpole ( talk) 11:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I was just curious if you were still interested in mediating, or at least offering an opinion regarding the dispute(s) at ME talk. I've said this many times, but I truly am considering a BLP noticeboard and possibly filing an incident report if this is not resolved soon. I hate the courtish process of those kinds of forums but I cannot seem to identify another alternative. Let me know what you think! Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In my view, I am doing my best to stay on discussion and have tried to direct the conversation towards the first steps that you outlined first, but I am sure my responses have gotten off-topic as well. If you could clarify about my problematic editing, I would try to correct. I am interested in your form of dispute resolution or another, I would just hope for a resolution to one of these processes that doesn't lead to another process in two weeks.-- 76.214.104.121 ( talk) 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You wrote: "Changed protection level for "Theodore Kaczynski": Persistent and significant violations of [[WP:BLP|policy on biographical articles] by multiple IPs, please consult with me before unprotecting"
I saw one IP add he word "penis" randomly, one IP try to add some spam links, and a whole lot of nothing else. Unless there have been multiple edits that have been completely erased from the history so there are no records that anything happened in the first place I see nothing like hat you are claiming. What are you calling a BLP violation, let alone "persistant" and "significant" examples of it? DreamGuy ( talk) 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I got your note, and I've been watching the page. The dispute seems blown out of proportion, particularly by one of the editors (Wikifan). I may make comments from time to time (for example, when bad ideas come up on how to organize the article) , but I don't expect to be deeply engaged. Also, I'm going away for several days. NPguy ( talk) 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done. If this is sent to DRV against WP:BLP, please drop me a note on my talk or via email as soon as possible in case I miss the note on your own talk page. Thanks. rootology ( C)( T) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reason to believe 76.214.104.121 and 68.251.184.4 are the same person. Both have been involved at ME and freedom house. Today I was asked to "recuse" from editing by 76.21.104.121 at FH. Diff. full discussion. After reverting an edit by 68.251.184.4, he responded with this rationale in history i thought you were agreeing to at least temporarily leave my edits alone. I did a geolocate for both addresses, and the ISP is in the same state and city. You'll have to click on their users and scroll down to "geolocate" to see the link. The site doesn't allow unique pages, every hit is simply listed as [1]. Could this pose a problem for the mediation? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Your "Note - if I have protected a page with the summary..." comment tails off into nothing at the top of your talk page, so forgive me if I'm missing an obvious point, but why have you semi-protected John Cooper Clarke with a summary of "Persistent and significant violations of policy on biographical articles by multiple IPs"? The last IP edit was in mid-March, and checking the article history I can't find a single anonymous-IP BLP-violation edit to the article in the past two years. -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin - I'm curious to know why you removed Dougweller's notification on the Markoff talk page about the block he made. Seems to me that it is relevant for other editors who have been dealing with him to know, given the edit history and I've seen similar notices many times on article talk pages. I assume you have a reason, so I'm not undoing it, but I am interested to know why. Thanks - and thanks for coming in and helping out there. Tvoz/ talk 07:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You say "significant and persistent" BLP violations. There has been two vandalism edits (today, May 5) in a year+. Where is this persistent vandalism? Grsz 11 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask you to re-create the article on the Sexual abuse scandal in Worcester diocese. The scandal really occured and there are plenty of sources that are not attacks against anyone. See for example this National Catholic Reporter article [7] about the abuser who got 50 years in jail. It is a fairly notable scandal, and the page is mostly modeled on the article Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese. ADM ( talk) 03:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have also deleted Thomas Dupre for the same reasons. Again, If reliable sources are supplied to back up the material, I will restore. Kevin ( talk) 03:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The IPer involved in the mediation as "reported" me at incidents. I personally find this disturbing, but I'd appreciate your opinion. Does this pose a threat to our mediation process? Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) has been uncivil and making personal attacks in edits at Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei:. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Shold I respond to edits on the FH talk page? I was thinking the idea would be to end this dispute and not show up on articles or talk pages in which WF is involved as well, but maybe I am missing the point? Thanks,-- 99.162.60.191 ( talk) 23:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
We recently had an edit war on the Stallone page. I have take it to the discussion section of his page. PLease take a look and see what you think. There has to be some sort of middle ground here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.84.73 ( talk) 12:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I had some feedback on your comment. And a suggestion about modifying the article. Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 01:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin - Theo789 is back, ignoring consensus and editing as he pleases. He's quoted you in support of his position on neutrality on the talk page - I don't know if you agree with him or not, but I figure it's best if you speak for yourself and decide where you want your comments posted, so I figured I'd mention it here. Meanwhile, any suggestions about how to get him to understand how things work around here? He doesn't seem to have learned from his block, not surprisingly. Thanks Tvoz/ talk 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Kevin, I am asking for removal of protection (or additional editing) regarding the article on Owen citing information brought to light in the 'discussion' tab. The original article was fraught with misinformation, omitted information and self-bravado. The most recent 'corrected' article is nearly as bad. Please read the discussions in the Article regarding Owen. In fairness, the page should reflect all of the aspects of this person, not just the positive ones. If no middle ground can be found, I ask that the article be deleted completely. There are plenty of bona fide and citeable references to back the claim that the article for Owen is very one-sided. This man is no saint and has hurt many people with his business practices. I see no reason why pointing out his business dealings in anyway is a violation of BLP. I assure you, Wikipedia has a responsibility to its readers to entitle them to all of the information available in a biography, good and bad :) . Cheers! 76.113.56.175 ( talk) 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Protection was, as Wknight observed, unjustified here, even under the most liberal interpretation of our protection policy, and I have no doubt that a consensus for unprotection will be borne out at RFPP. It is only right, though, that I offer you the opportunity to unprotect; please let me know (here is fine) when you've a moment whether you will unprotect or whether you'd prefer that I take the issue to RFPP in order that a broader discussion might be had. Thanks, 68.76.147.212 ( talk) 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you also unprotect the Larry Bird article? I looked over the history, and it's not like there's like 7 IP's vandalising the article every day!! I've seen articles getting locked up until 2010 here...you might be interested in reading my subpage about this. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 05:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
How is this an interaction between User:Abtract and User:Alastair_Haines? The diff does not indicate that it is a violation of the arbitration (although it could be -- the complainant should have included a second diff showing that though). -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, there seems to be no talking sense to Wikifan on the ElBaradei article. We've all tried, but to no avail. It seems like a waste of time. I'm ready to give up. NPguy ( talk) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
By strict path policy, I mean justifying extreme disputes and accusations with policy and accurate information. For example, many statements directed at my posts were rather short-sighted and factually inaccurate. The following accusations were made by NPguy, IP, and you:
It is you who has engaged in, or acted indifferent towards, tendentious editing. Not a single user has confronted or remotely approached the policies and sources I listed. I am not arguing users do not believe a unique section is warranted. I've been explaining why that is wrong. Whatever repetition you've assumed is likely the product of me simply repeating arguments that went unrecognized or unseen. Even so, I still responded to off-topic and red-herring accusations, which derailed discussions and forced us back. If you could please examine the sections I linked in "random section break" and come back with a dispute that goes beyond "user x, x, and x believes a unique section is not warranted" please do. I've requested you do this 4 times now. Take your time. :D If you have a specific dispute, please quote it in exact-form. If you deny the violations/accusations I mentioned above the have been asterisked, list them now. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Desiree Washington, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiree Washington. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. PirateSmackK Arrrr! 08:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I posted a request to extent protection status here. I plan on submitting a request to MEDCAB (endorsed by the editors) soon but in the meantime would you endorse a protection extension until then? The lock expires 2 days. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 07:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Wikifan12345 ( talk) 07:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why you made this edit at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert? At the bottom of that page used to be the words "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate". Those words seem pointless if the entire page is blanked. I, for one, would like the page to be reinstated please. HWV258 04:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the original edit has been undone. I support that action. Please note that that's two editors who believe that the evidence in this case should remain visible. I'm happy to discuss it further, but I request that the page remains visible during the discussion and subsequent RfC (if necessary). HWV258 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not know that, about the <>on talk pages, they seem to be working on the ones I used. Whippletheduck ( talk) 06:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I have not done anything to the page since this morning. But I am prepared to make a case against the people that are clearly trying to spike this story, they are just as guilty if not more so: the edits I am putting in have met Verification, NPOV, and whatever the other one was as far as an edit against a Biography of living person goes, so I am well within my rights to report them for edit warring, because they are clearly trying to stop a legitimate edit that they personally don't like. Whippletheduck ( talk) 03:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
""Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.""
So, the question is, to both Kevin and to Sandor Clegane, you were saying one thing, both agreed, and now that the two issues you both specifically cited as making the entry are being met, you are now changing the argument to what now??? Whippletheduck ( talk) 04:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It is becoming clear to me that you do not intend to actually listen to what other editors are saying. Regardless of what you perceive as the merits of your argument, you have lost. There is a clear consensus against your position. Now you are resorting to casting aspersions on other editors rather than adressing their arguments. You should consider going away from that article, edit something else for a while. Kevin ( talk) 04:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey I'm having problems with the 3RR reporting page, where Im trying to report Sandor's 3R violation against me with.
Anyhow, the fact that both you and SANDOR have BOTH said that A) the original sources were not up to meet verification; and then BOTH agreed that it was UNDUE WEIGHT to use those to put in an entire paragraph. Both of you were VERY clear on that. So I have improved the sourcing and dropped it down to a single sentence and you guys are still against it. The only thing I seem to be running against is the Megan Fox (word that rhymes with VAN+word that rhymes with TOY) club here at Wikipedia, which by itself is almost laughable.
It's also funny because most of my 'critiques' were more generalized against the subject of the article- Sandor has accused me of being a conservitive, which is laughable and the fact that he has gone all out to stop this means either the VAN TOY argument which was the only thing I REALLY said against you people (and met as a compliment) But the fact that you guys are doing to me everything that I am NOT doing to you is also funny. Whippletheduck ( talk) 01:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I found the following was posted by you on one of our discussions.....""[quote]If you can present a reliably sourced report (i.e. mainstream media reports) then it could stay, so long as it passes the hurdle of undue weight, otherwise it must be left out. Kevin (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[/quote]
Seems like I accomplished both and you are still the one edit warring,...... Whippletheduck ( talk) 04:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurij Moskon... I was a little luckier than you in my search. The article will need Slovenian input. MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I made a mistake when I added the time of the eagle eye premiere, it was on September 16, 2008 - not 2009, thanks for correcting the mistake to the photos caption on the page. Ashley92995 ( talk) 05:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I'm well aware of that, hence me asking him to disclose them. Message blanked to avoid giving him any ideas. :-)
Jclemens (
talk)
23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Kevin, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Czechtalent Zlín has been removed. It was removed by Rigadoun with the following edit summary '(decline prod, a google search reveals lots of hits in Czech, that I can't evaluate but suggest that it may be notable -- this needs discussion)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Rigadoun before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 01:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Stop reverting without viewing the talk page. Conesus was reached there, as well as on my talk page with interested users, so STOP REVERTING WITHOUT DISUCSSING PLEASE. Pyrofork ( talk) 05:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
Megan Fox. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Pyrofork (
talk)
23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you protected Steven Cohen (soccer), would you mind protecting the page of his former show World Soccer Daily? Similar unsourced and POV information from IP addresses as was added to the Steven Cohen article has been added to the World Soccer Daily article. Thanks. Mikerichi ( talk) 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The BLP Barnstar | |
Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches (in the happy event of your return)! ++ Lar: t/ c 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
Gucci Mane's article is missing the whole bit about how he shot at some people and was charged with murder. i made an account to fix it but i'm not going to make filler edits just to confirm my account.. please either unprotect so i can fix it, or fix it yourself, or ask someone else to do it.
"arrest" section is also all wrong, check out the citations
and yes IP edits can do plenty wrong, easy solution would be an approval system for IP edits, or delay so you could revert them before they go live.. current wikipedia is just broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingpants ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristen McNamara. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 ( talk) 20:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The BLP Barnstar | |
Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches (in the happy event of your return)! ++ Lar: t/ c 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
- welcome back to mopping tasks.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 10:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Kevin,
I obviously don't have any clue as to how to use wikipedia or else i wouldn't be posting here, but it looks like you deleted the tommy sowers article. I'm not really sure why that was. It met the primary notability criterion... how do you decide? At what point does a poltiical candidate go from being not worthy to worthy? I thougth it was when the became notable based on independent press? That seems to have happened to me... There are at least 10 online articles in the past month about the candidate...
Matth915 (
talk)
15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. I am leaving this message to you because you voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Rutterschmidt. The AfD was closed early because the article had been renamed to Black Widow murders during the discussion, and both Olga Rutterschmidt and its sister article Helen Golay have been merged into it. If you wish, please feel free to nominate this new article for deletion if you feel that the article does not merit a place on Wikipedia. Regards, NW ( Talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously I'm fine with closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arvin Nery as delete, but the IPs were different. Same ISP, but different IPs.-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain how the sources discussed and linked to don't meet WP:N? Your basis for the close would seem to rely on your reading of the value of those sources so I think the close should touch on them. Thanks. Hobit ( talk) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel strongly one way or the other about this article, but the perceived BLP issue could have easily been removed without deleting the entire article. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Rosas as delete based on the sources being about Al Rosas' farm rather than about him. However, none of the AFD participants raised this as an issue. Based on the discussion in the article, these sources were accepted as supporting notability. Please review. Thanks. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Al Rosas. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Whpq ( talk) 13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, if you have a chance there is a question for you at the DrV... Hobit ( talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Twinkle failure. I'll have to wait until I get home later to fix it, unless you want to be a Really Nice Person and do it... :-) - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I'd really appreciate it if you could answer a quick question. I'm trying to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines but the Ronald I. Meshbesher page is flagged. How can I get these flags removed? I have tried making the page more neutral in tone, adding credible sources, etc. Thanks in advance for your help. Lhc67
Hey - I sent you a couple of e-mails - did you get them? -->David Shankbone 23:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you think Stephanie Birkitt is notable only for the alleged affair with David Letterman. The Wikipedia article titled Stephanie Birkitt was there for a long time before the news of the affair broke. She appeared frequently on Letterman's show for a number of years. Didn't you ever see her on the show? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
What is "absurd" is your statement that Stephanie Birkitt was not known to the public until the recent revelations about Letterman's behavior. If that were true, the article would not have such a long history. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The temporary furore over at Global warming on cyclical variations / using the NYT as a source, seems to have abated (well, of course it's abated in the presence of a protect), but I think we have a solution (see down at the bottom of Talk:Global_warming#Note_cyclical_variations_which_lead_to_recent_cooling_trends) which is to ignore the larger question of suitability of newspapers as sources for solid science based articles (whatever one takes that to mean), and instead address the kernel that crystalized the dispute - to wit, replace the contentious NYT reference with the original source material. There seems to be support for this (and the absence of any disagreement), so ... could you unprotect the article again? If you're interested, I've got an updated version with the contentious reference replaced at User:Lissajous/Global_warming which is what I would replace the current (contentious?) version with. Lissajous ( talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I see it's unprotected. Thanks. Lissajous ( talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand and agree with you. No problem to delete. Sorry. Regi-Iris Stefanelli ( talk) 23:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Prior to your protecting and unprotecting of the global warming article, it was semi-protected. Did you mean to remove the semi-prot when you unprotected it? - Atmoz ( talk) 06:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I like your style. Why do you call yourself a "former administrator"? ƒ(Δ)² 16:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Another editor has created Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur), which has the same name as an article which was deleted earlier as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur). My first reaction is that the subject is notable, but the article is a mess. I am reluctant to invest time in it, though, if the article is going to be deleted. Could you take a look at the references and decide whether there is enough evidence of notability to make the article worth salvaging? -- Eastmain ( talk) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am the user who created the page for
Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur) - please elaborate on what the issue was with the most recent page deleted. I don't understand how "KEVIN" went through every reference in my most recent version and saw "nothing at all that would indicate that he notable." The articles clearly validate the stated experiences of Mr. Andrew Bentley and not sure what I am missing here.
Please advise
Hyim1 (
talk)
16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Harry
Hi. I was just commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination) and when I went to save I saw that you already speedied it. Since the original afd took place the case has received major coverage by abc news, I believe that this expanded coverage meets the first of the 'valid reasons for recreating a deleted page' under WP:RPDA. It may again be deleted but IMO it should be able to go through AfD again. Thank you J04n( talk page) 02:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted the Samantha Henderson page without giving me a chance to move the information to my sandbox. How can I recover that info? Vermiculite ( talk) 02:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from List of programs broadcast by RedeTV!, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Smallman12q ( talk) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for semi-protecting this page. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 08:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Allied Artists International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/ contrib 01:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey Kevin- do you mind handling User:Mariah-Yulia's concern in this section on my page? I think your AGF-o-meter is higher than mine on this, so I think you'd do a better job at it than me. tedder ( talk) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, the photo is legitimate on the "21 Magazine" webpage. If you have any questions, please talk to me first before putting up a deletion notice. I would appreciate it! Thank you! Have a wonderful day! Modelmanager ( talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Kevin, take a look at Vogue (Magazine), they have a cover on their wiki page amongst others. You confirmed my page yesterday which I do appreciate, now you are using up my time trying to finish up this page. I am allowed to place covers on the Wiki page. Have the owner of Wiki contact me directly if he has a problem with it. Otherwise, please let me finish this page, so I can move onto my next project. Thank you! Modelmanager ( talk) 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Hi Kevin, ok thanks for the tip, I will follow that procedure Modelmanager ( talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Look I ignored one WP:BLP rule and you start labelling me as a bad editor? Or what did you try to say when you wrote "Well thanks for letting me know what kind of editor you are". I have 1,883 "Unique articles edited" and without me a lot of "Ukrainian" articles would be out of date, I do not deserve this kind of attitude.
What the hell, millions of other editors have ignored those rules before me. Yes people on wikipedia do ignore WP:BLP, if you have a problem with that contact Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. I (and others) will listen to them; I won't listen to you since your behaviour is selective ( Roland Burris kids are still mentioned in his article!), unrespectfull and just the opinion of 1 administrator (the opinion of 1 administrator is not consensus either!). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not say/think you are a dick, I tried to say I was/am not a dick; clearly I offended you and apologise for that, but it was not my intention! I only choose that picture cause it reflects the way I would like editors to work like, I died not try to give another message with it. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for chipping in on Marc Sinden. It's difficult to avoid running into 3RR when there's a determined sock around with an agenda. And he's back again.... Little grape ( talk) 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I appreciate your support on the 21 Magazine page. However, other Admin people decided to delete vs. actually help the page. I spent hours researching and trying to build the page. I didn't start the page two years ago, but they decided to delete the entire page anyway. I am very frustrated to say the least. How can a build this page right and avoid the onslaught of Admin people trying to tear it down? Thanks for your time Modelmanager ( talk) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Well not really. Just wondering if i could get a userfication of Wadih Saadeh? I promise to be a good boy & run it past you, DRV or whaterver if it turns out that it might be salvageable. Thanx Misarxist ( talk) 13:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Please reconsider your close of this AFD.
First, I disagree that the applicability of BLP1E was established conclusively, or not refuted, however you want to phrase it; there certainly wasn't consensus that this was such a case. It's particularly difficult to push Bardwell into that category, where the relevant "event" is something he did based on his usual policy. BLP1E states that "[i]f the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." If the "event" here is Bardwell's refusal to officiate an interracial marriage, obviously he played the most substantial role in that "event", because it occurred solely because of his own conduct and beliefs. He is not "likely to remain[ ] low profile" given that state and federal officials are calling for his resignation or sacking; there is a federal lawsuit proceeding against him; and he has also given at least one interview to a national news network, and probably will give more. It is far from clear on its face that WP:BLP1E applied here, and there certainly was not a consensus that it did within the AFD.
Second, even where BLP1E applies, the solution isn't necessarily to delete outright, but rather to perform "a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name," which all presupposes that there is a separate article about the "event" ("a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted"). Many of the comments in the AFD were, in fact, urging that the article be refactored as an article on the "event," however characterized, and many of those expressly urging deletion nevertheless conceded that the "event" was notable. At a minimum, this should have been done by moving the article to an appropriate title.
In conclusion, I believe the best result would have been to close as "no consensus", given the lack of agreement and the lack of clear applicability of policy. This of course would not preclude a later AFD if the story does not develop any further and once the interest has calmed down (see largely on point comments of closer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident).
Thanks for your time, and I await your response. Postdlf ( talk) 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, perhaps you can help on the right and wrong of this: The source for the Marc Sinden trivia - which you reverted - of him living in The Bishops Avenue (which is true) also states that he is in a relationship with Heather Mills (which is untrue and/or he has repeatedly denied) http://realestalker.blogspot.com/2009/09/heather-mills-is-flipping-out-on.html This is why I had not put it as the source, as it contains both stories. Can I include it without falling foul of an editor with a POV on Mills? Captainclegg ( talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Provided the user was the person credited as the creator so the image was valid in the first place, deleting something released into the public domain that is potentially useful for educational purposes merely because the creator changed his/her mind is not in keeping with Wikipedia's mission, right? Hekerui ( talk) 21:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have witness that User:AurangzebMarwat has removed the AfD tag from his article Mullazai thrice and citation needed tag for twice, without providing any reference, by himself, through edit. Despite warning him, he did it again. Please take some serious action. The user wasl also previous blocked for doing such with his another (thice) created article Sarfaraz Khan Marwat. You culd see and visit his talk-page. 119.153.57.156 ( talk) 04:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You removed the category "Crime in Louisiana" from the article " 2009 refusal of interracial marriage in Louisiana." Your explanation was that "no-one has been charged or convicted of any crime in relation to this." But see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8310509.stm (and there are other sources). The ACLU alleges that Bardwell knowingly broke the law. Doesn't that sound as if he has been "charged" with a crime? The governor has made a similar statement and called for Bardwell to be fired. A civil (although not criminal) suit has has been filed. Rammer ( talk) 03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Kevin … Less that 24 hours after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar was closed as Delete, one of the sockpuppets - Robroams ( talk · contribs) - has recreated it … I've tagged it with {{ uw-repost}}, but would you please WP:SALT it? Thnx!
Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Please move the article Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Greg Augustine. I do not feel any need to create wikidrama at a DRV over your good faith closing with minutes of NW's relisting, but do feel that in the incubator others may be able to strengthen it and address the weak delete comments. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, I'd like you to consider refraining from closing BLP AfDs until some of the discussion about them level out. You seem to be working to be beat of a drummer that's not entirely matched to current consensus and policy on these topics. "I disagree with relisting BLPs, which is why I have been systematically closing them where I see them." is one example. I realize that I'm coming at this from a viewpoint that your view on the issue is wrong and therefor I'm biased. But I think admins need to be careful about taking admin actions in areas they have strong opinions. Hobit ( talk) 04:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
N.B Meitei seems to have slipped by my watchlist too! Didn't see it until I'd started reviewing the contributions of the various socks. Bongo matic 09:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{ talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.
Please forgive me if I am doing this incorrectly. I am new to this, but I am very concerned and upset..
I am officially protesting your deletion of Ted Andrews' page. Ironically, it was taken down the day that he unexpectedly died. Your reasoning was absolutely misinformed. He was not self-published, but had dozens of books published by Llewellyn Worldwide and others. http://www.llewellyn.com/author.php?author_id=2605
He is a widely known, highly respected wise elder in many esoteric paths, including shamanic practices, Earth spirituality, Nature lore, and mythology. He does, in fact, meet just about every one of the criteria:
The evaluation given on the page couldn't have been MORE wrong.
Please restore this wise and gentle man's entry. This is such an injustice, especially at a time when his many admirers are grieving his sudden death.
Thank you for kindly reconsidering. Owlsdaughter ( talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has been brought to deletion review by another editor, not on the grounds of the merits of the subject, but on grounds of the early closure. You may want to comment.See [15] DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Contesting deletion of Emilio B. Moure wikipedia page. Contrary to accusations, Moure commands notability not only in Knights of Colubmbus but also in Cuban American community and lay Catholic community. In addition, Moure's nonprofit leadership expands beyond his full time executive role at the Knights of Columbus to a post on the board of the National Fraternal Congress of America. Can provide secondary source documentation attesting to affiliation with other organizations, namely the National Fraternal Congress of America and the Wheelchair Foundation. Please undelete. ( pvphl ( talk) 15:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
I agree with your recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bamford closure. I am only puzzled by a detail. Why the article has been deleted and then recreated as a redirect, instead of having been redirected directly? I was thinking of maybe using some of the material in the history to merge in the Trevor Brennar article, and this way it is impossible. Thanks! -- Cyclopia talk 13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You closed the AfD as delete, but you didn't delete the article. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to explain your closes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hivehom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitar (fictional planet) and the similar articles where you just said "Delete" without further explanation? In particular, why did you think my suggestion of redirect was inappropriate--there was a second comment to that effect also. It would have helped to give a rationale in the first place. Could you please respond on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You recently deleted an article I submitted. So I created this article at: User:JLRedperson/HP_BTO_Software
I added more Wikipedia internal links, cited outside references and worked to improve the article based on your feedback. I also asked for comments and suggestions from the editors in the WikiProject computing. I received only one suggestion, to change the bulleted lists into prose, and so I made those changes.
Full disclosure: I work for HP, however, I am a journalist by academic background and wrote this article as a neutral, objective submission. The idea being to state the name of the product and what it does—with no hype or advertising. This is similar to Microsoft’s page that lists Microsoft_Office_Excel as "a spreadsheet-application written and distributed by Microsoft for Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X. It features calculation, graphing tools, pivot tables and a macro programming language called VBA (Visual Basic for Applications)."
The goal of creating this article to add to the quality and quantity of information about computing technology on Wikipedia. Because HP bought several enterprise software companies during the past four years, this article attempts to help classify the portfolio to aid Wikipedia readers. Also after publication of this article, we will be able to direct Wikipedia users to this article from the pages that currently exist but are no longer accurate such as Opsware. This will add to the body of knowledge of the types of ways that software can help companies better manage their data centers, similar to the IBM pages that describe Tivoli and WebSphere software for example. (See: IBM_Tivoli_Identity_Manager and WebSphere)
I welcome all comments and suggestions for improvement. Although I have edited approximately 9 articles on Wikipedia, I am still new at this. Therefore, any insights are appreciated.
I look forward to your feedback on this new article. JLRedperson ( talk) 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Thank G-D for someone with a brain. Unfortunately when I started that mess I wasn't using mine. Д-р СДжП,ДС 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I would like to thank you, instead of rant about why you have deleted it, because after reading in my user talk page Speedy deletion nomination of ZaRP! I would have asked an admin to delete it. You have saved the trouble of running around Wikipedia to find an admin currently online. HCV= 04:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellcatV ( talk • contribs)
Hello Kevin, From reading your close, it seemed that you agreed that this article met our guidelines (WP:N in this case) for article inclusion. Given that the !vote count was quite close and the delete !votes provided very little in the way of policy-based arguments for deletion, I don't see the consensus for deletion (I'd say no consensus leaning quite hard for keeping, though given I was one of the !vote keep folks, I may have a biased perspective). Any chance you'll take another look at it and reconsider that close? Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 06:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
User_talk:Steve_Smith#Deleting_material_from_talk_pages Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 13:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The editor who nominated this AfD edited it in the past to be as NN as possible when there were many more references than were in the article you deleted. It was absolutely beyond the pale of any understanding of what NPOV means. This is my last comment on this matter unless I am invited to respond to anything.
Revision as of 16:28, 18 February 2009 Raymond Joseph Cormier
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Raymond Joseph Cormier is a self-proclaimed Prophet in Canada. He has run for a seat in the Canadian House of Commons as an independent, and once ran for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Contents [hide] * 1 Arrests * 2 Pilgrimages * 3 Politics * 4 References Arrests He was arrested on a number of occasions in the late 1970s for disturbing the peace in Downtown Ottawa. He was convicted, and later breached his probation and was sent to jail.[1][2][3][4][5] On the first day of televised debate in the House of Commons, security guards removed Cormier from the gallery.[6][7][8] In 1985, on Remembrance Day, Cormier was arrested and fined $250 for causing a disturbance. [9][10][11] Pilgrimages In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon. Four newspapers and Maclean's wrote stories about his journey.[12][13][14][15][16] In 1986 he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.[17][18][19][20] Politics Cormier ran in the 1984 federal election. He received 71 votes out of 40,000 as an independent in Ottawa Centre.[21] He ran again in Ottawa Centre as an independent in the 1997 federal election. He received 91 votes out of 50,000.[22][23][24][25] References 1. ^ "Preacher Arrested on Mall" Ottawa Citizen 3 September 1977 2. ^ Dave Rogers, "Second police warning for God's emissary", Ottawa Citizen, 10 September 1977, A2. 3. ^ "Emissary from God undaunted", Ottawa Citizen, 22 October 1977, pg 2. 4. ^ "The self-styled prophet hauled off Mall again", Ottawa Citizen, 3 November 1977, pg5. 5. ^ "Mall 'prophet' jailed again", Ottawa Citizen, 5 November 1977, pg 5. 6. ^ "Prophet hauled out of Commons gallery", Ottawa Citizen, 18 October 1977, pg 3. 7. ^ "Gagged protester gets heave-ho", Ottawa Today, 18 October 1977. 8. ^ "Masked protester returns", The Ottawa Citizen, July 15, 1978 9. ^ Jane Taber "'Prophet' fined for shouting at Nov. 11 service", Ottawa Citizen, 3 January 1986 10. ^ "Anti-war speech costs man $250", Globe and Mail, 3 January 1986 11. ^ "Cormier condamné", Le Droit, 3 January 1986 12. ^ Steve St. Laurent. "Visiting 'prophet' no average preacher", Calgary Herald, 18 July 1981, A11. 13. ^ Cathy Lord "Visions compelled search for God", Edmonton Journal, 25 July 1981,G13. 14. ^ Leslie Cole "Self-proclaimed prophet: Showmanship not his style", Whitehorse Star, 26 August 1981, pg 3 15. ^ Nicholas Read "'Divine gifts' inspire ex-executive to tramp the land with a message", Vancouver Sun, 3 October 1981 16. ^ Maclean's Magazine, pg 40 31 August 1981, People Section. 17. ^ Richard Caron "Raymond Cormier sillonne le pays pour precher Dieu", Le Soliel, 28 July 1986 18. ^ Elizabeth Hanton "Prophet sees Canada as the new Israel", The Halifax Daily News, 11 August 1986 19. ^ Sylvia Reddom "Shares Faith With Canadians - Religion More Than Going To Church Says Travelling Born Again Christian", The Charlottetown Guardian, 20 August 1986 20. ^ Emily Dyckson "Wandering prophet shares his faith", The Weekend (St. John's), 30 August 1986 21. ^ History of Federal Ridings since 1867 22. ^ Kernaghan R. Webb Focus Magazine September1984 'RJC: Cormier makes people nervous. Especially authorities.' 23. ^ Elections Canada On-Line | General Information 24. ^ Kathleen Patterson "Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil" The Kansas City Times pg. 3A 13 September 1976 25. ^ Robert W. Butler "Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction" The Kansas City Times 2 November 1976 |
Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 21:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
What I find most disturbing about the process is four delete opinions were based on this comment
I think its borderline, and if the subject weren't causing such issues, I'd probably let it slide. Wikipedia is not paper. But self-declared prophet who did what, ran for office and lost? Uh, can we say Gastrich? Not notable, seriously. His sources are small newspapers from the seventies for the most part; we can look for someone local to the papers to go read the microfiche but I'm not seeing notability here, more like sourced Local Character. Good for them. My home town had a local character too, and I have not (and will not) write a WP article on him. If you take a look, the "news" seems to be mostly Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing. This is NOT notability. -- Atama頭 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The very next comment below that is this, which no one bothered to read, evidently.
My error on the sources; thank you for your AGF. I'm still thinking that he's more "color" than "substance" but clearly what we need here is more input from other editors. This is a borderline case at best, one I would not like to close. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As I know how to read, four delete opinions were based on an erroneous statement in the 1st place. Where is the fairness in the process? Did the closing Administrator even look at that? Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you deleted the article that I had nominated for AfD, but there was a slight problem. Cyber Security virus still exists, because the article was moved after AfD was proposed. So the redirect was what was actually deleted, not the article itself. Could you go ahead and delete the article? Thanks. Netalarm talk 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason for this revert? Tim Song ( talk) 02:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of the Fort Hood shooting/massacre as your reason was unfair. I never suggested that any killing by a Muslim was automatically Islamic terrorism. However, if a devout Muslim yelling "Allahu Akbar" before killing 13 people and wounding 31 others does not qualify as Islamic terrorism, then we are setting the bar way too high. Screaming "Allahu Akbar" prior to unproviked violence carries the meaning "I am Muslim and I am killing you because you are not Muslims." Jwbaumann ( talk) 06:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a letter to The Citizen taking exception to his projections. I sent a copy to the Prime Minister, all Opposition Party leaders, The Pope´s Ambassador to Canada and all Princes of the Catholic Church in Canada, the Leaders of all other Christian Denominations, and to Jewish and Islamic Religious Leadership. The only one to reply was the Hon. Joe_Clark, Leader of the Official Opposition at the time.
You can read this 31 year old projection of what I saw coming relative to this discussion in 1978. The Citizen did not publish it. You might need a magnifying glass even after the expanded image to read the script, the three images down, three on the left. I was much younger then, interpreting the world through the prism of the Bible of things appearing darkly in the Future. These days I learn about it in the secular media as it´s happening. I hope this provides some backgrounder information to this discussion. The reality IS, God IS Great! [16] Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The attack was a terrorist attack, carried out by a Muslim terrorist who listened to and followed a radical Imam, and did his best to kill as many people as possible. Had this be a Christian shouting "Jesus Saves" and opened up on Mulims, everyone would be screaming about Christian terrorists! mab91c —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.124.22 ( talk) 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well; you've made yourself clear, Kevin me'lad, but using vulgarities is frowned upon by most in civilized talk. Perhaps you could get out of your shorts, bathrobe, & slippers, get up out of the basement, and go see if your mommy needs a nice cup of tea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.124.22 ( talk) 13:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your response to the discussion you began on my talkpage. Thanks Kevin McCready ( talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The attack was a terrorist attack, carried out by a Muslim terrorist who listened to and followed a radical Imam, and did his best to kill as many people as possible. Had this be a Christian shouting "Jesus Saves" and opened up on Mulims, everyone would be screaming about Christian terrorists!
I saw your revert on Brittny Gastineau, quick question about it. While it is unsourced (and I don't remember it in the movie), my take on this information is that not only isn't it notable, but it violates WP:UNDUE because there's no context whatsoever to the quote. Some editors want to push what they see as the "truth," but without knowing if she was joking (in an obvious comedy movie), and without any kind of reliable sources establishing notability, it doesn't belong. What's your take on that? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker ( talk) 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Re your close of this AfD -- Teitel has now been charged with an impressive array of offenses, stretching over many years: [17]. I wonder if you're inclined to revisit the notion that this one falls under BLP1E: the fact that some editors are inclined to see it that way doesn't make it so. This one feels an awful lot like no consensus. No big deal, I suppose -- it can be recreated as evidence of notability continues to accumulate. regards, Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A very surprising closure to me. Could you clarify:
I have said all I intend to say on this particular close. If you disagree with those whose interpretation of WP:BLP1E is different to yours, you will need to find another venue in which to take this up. There is a list of them (the editors) at the AfD. Kevin ( talk) 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
DePiep ( talk) 00:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I give up. Kevin ( talk) 01:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sniff Petrol. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Davepoth ( talk) 12:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. You closed the AfD on George Lee (British politician). I was v surprised that this article was not in Wikipedia - I've quickly recreated it from the Google cache in my Userspace and added some refs making the claims to notability (I think) pretty clear. I think this is probably ready for a Deletion Review but I'd really value your opinion on whether more work is needed on it first. Many thanks. NBeale ( talk) 13:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Please review Heydon Prowse discussion page. Per your suggestion of finding common ground, both parties have agreed that page should be reverted to pre-edit "war" to the revision of approx May 2009. Would you revert to this version or unlock the page? LondonFoggy ( talk) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Marie Poise ( talk) 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning - if you get a chance, could you review edit history of Clegg, particularly with reference to Marc Sinden, and perhaps advise on dragging the article back to some semblance of encyclopaedic content? Little grape ( talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
But I am trying to STOP the vandalism of this site. I am not trying to antagonise Little Grape at all, merely stop him/her from constantly deleting sourced material that doesn't suit his POV. I am undoing his wrong and inaccurate edits of sourced material. He tried to claim that the 'Relative Values' articles were in the Sunday Times, when they were in the Daily Mail. I have a copy in front of me! He claims that Debretts was not called 'Distinguished', yet if you look at the ISBN and the source that I used, it was then called that. It only changed its name recently. Please help to stop this apparent personal obsession that Little Grape has with deleting so much of the Sinden article. I cannot get away from the fact that it seems personal. But we have been here before and I thought (after your suggestion) that we had 'drawn a line' but apparently not... Captainclegg (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that advise about the vandalism. I was unaware of that. I will take more care with that in future. May I refer you to the Talk:The Bishops Avenue page where Little Grape has made it very clear that he must know where Sinden lives personally and even describes the house (which is more than I am aware of) surely proving that he must know Sinden and have some personal beef with him to be so specific. As I stated previously when all this kicked-off originally, I would be happy to 'draw a line', but Little Grape seems hell-bent on re-writing the facts to suit his aim. He has now incorrectly removed the word "Distinguished" from the reference to an honorary position held by Sinden at the British Humanist Association. I have not however corrected it for fear of falling foul of your ruling! But again, I appeal for your intervention. Captainclegg ( talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
1.) Angela Brooks (a Daily Mail column writer) wrote the regular series Relative Values in 1994. The particular article quoted is a full-page, two-fold interview with Donald Sinden and his son Marc, discussing his schooling, among many other things, from their respective viewpoints. It is a separate article from the Sunday Times article and in no way connected, as far as I can tell. I photocopied it from my local library. 2.) I included a sourced blog which stated that Sinden lived in The Bishops Avenue. ( http://realestalker.blogspot.com/2009/09/heather-mills-is-flipping-out-on.html) Kevin said this was unreliable and I have not argued the point or reverted it once this ruling was made. I did not write it or invent it. As in point 1 please stop shooting the messenger. 3.) Unlike Little Grape, who says above "I clearly know where Sinden lives" I am unaware of where Sinden now lives, or for how long. I would be interested to know how he does and with what accuracy. Perhaps he should declare his interest or real identity. 4.) As Little Grape has done his constant damnedest to out me (a serious Wiki offence, but no one has done anything about it...) I can now tell him that Yes, he is right, as I stated, I was in the 'Hey Jude' film. I am the girl standing behind and to the left of Paul, in the white dress, black belt and brown hair. THAT is how I know that the two Sinden brothers were in the film (who are behind and next to Ringo) and that is what I told Mark Lewisohn. Satisfied now? Sorry to disappoint you and your obsessive conspiracy theory. 5.) I would also suggest that the articles that have been so furiously tampered with by Little Grape are returned to their state of 24-hours ago and that the two of us are then excluded from any Sinden-related articles, as suggested. I would not have a problem with that. Captainclegg ( talk) 01:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll be back to deal with you pair tomorrow. In the meantime, you might consider that you are not helping either. Kevin ( talk) 07:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, is it possible that with the almost exclusively targeted deletion of any and all articles concerning Marc Sinden (including sourced material) and the very intimate knowledge of his travel plans, not as far as I can see published in any paper etc. Marc Sinden is currently in Australia, having just arrived there, all references to Ms Mills, even including his denials of any relationship with her and his home address I clearly know where Sinden lives - ...in a little semi-detached two-up two-down off the Finchley Road and has lived there for at least the last ten years that we are perhaps being manipulated into looking the wrong way at who Little Grape really is? Double-bluff, smoke & mirrors perhaps? I merely ask the question. Captainclegg ( talk) 12:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, PLEASE don't let this matter slip away... Captainclegg ( talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I reverted your removal an entry on the page but just noticed I mistyped my edit summary as "hardy adequate", which would not make sense. I meant to type "hardly inadequate". Just thought I'd explain. – Moondyne 07:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the identity controversy and i wrote my reasons to the articles talk page. Also i think that when you are doing BLP and removing large parts from the article it would be polite to add notify in the talk-page also. -- Zache ( talk) 18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Kevin, greatly appreciate your intervention between Marie Poise and logger9. I read you've come to one of the same questions I asked Marie, she refused to answer me. I'm not sure why she should change her mind. Both appear willing to discuss content, yet whenever a straight question appears, they duck and get personal (not always attacks, just personal in other ways). Marie wrote she doesn't want to answer me because even if we reach consensus at T:liquid, logger would continue his edits at other places. I should perhaps give up then, but imo this bunch of general articles (liquid, solid, glass, solution, etc) is simply to generally important. I think most can and should yet be improved. If anything, logger and Marie seem to agree about that.
My idea is this: there is an inactive physical chemistry wikiproject. Though I am not an expert in physical chemistry, I know a little about it and could restart the project, but only if logger and Marie agree to join too. I hope others will also jump in. We could then have general discussions about groups of articles, which (secondary?) sources to use for the general articles, how to distribute info over several articles, etc. This can only work if logger9 agrees not to insert new content without consensus at the project pages first. The two of them also need to get more constructive imho - that's why at first some supervision would be welcome. I'd like to propose this idea at the TP of liquid, but what's your opinion? Regards, Woodwalker ( talk) 05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, Would you either reopen this AfD or close it as no consensus? I can't see the article at this point, but I don't think there was consensus for that deletion (no !votes to delete...) Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I love your deletion summary for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 3, calling it "non-controversial" :) I mean, it is, but don't be surprised if certain people create controversy over it. -- NE2 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, Additional information was added to the article before it was closed, showing that Michael Solonoski indeed fits the qualifications for inclusion, as he is competing at the "highest level of his sport" 2010 United States Figure Skating Championships. He also has competed internationally twice. If his article was removed, other athletes such as Jordan Miller (figure skater) should be most definitely be removed, as they have even less notability in the sport. Additionally, a stub should be added for Daniel Raad, who is competing at the 2010 United States Figure Skating Championships as well.
If you could comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated Reverts at Solid, it would be much appreciated. Cheers, NW ( Talk) 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
While examining the editorial actions of a sockpuppet I ran across a number of bad faith nominations. This was one of the deletions I overturned after finding a significant number of sources pointing to its notability. Please let me know if you are not comfortable with this action. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 01:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, You recently deleted an article I submitted on the NASA Ames Research Center CIO Chris C. Kemp. I personally also work at NASA Ames and I am surprised to find this article be nominated for deletion, since it aims to provide a genuine and objective bio of a valuable member of the NASA family. I would like to work on bringing an article about Chris C. Kemp back as he is an important executive driving innovation inside the Agency (cloudcomputing) and I believe having a wikipedia article on Chris C. Kemp serves the important purpose of offering a trustworthy source about his background and career for US government officials. Could you provide me with guidelines on how to make it more appropriate for inclusion on wikipedia?
Thanks Navarenko ( talk) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoping, given the passage of two weeks as you stipulated, that you've had time for consideration. Kevin McCready ( talk) 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Kevin, At the AfD for the Christy Twins [22], you indicated that there was a clear consensus to delete. That one was a bit weird in that a number of people !voted twice. So after the relist by Tim there was only one new !vote to delete and one to redirect if I'm counting correctly. Could you look that over again and reopen the discussion? Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 05:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin! You closed the discussion about Megarex and Megarex (album). However, you didn't remove the tag from the former. The last is still tagged for deletion. Can you solve it? Thank you! Victor Silveira ( talk) 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Kevin - Your guidance is requested on the BLP Arthur Kemp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kemp
Your response has been the only reaction to the proposed revision of that article, as contained on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Kemp Talk:Arthur Kemp page.
As I am new to Wikipedia, does the lack of response mean acceptance of the revised article or will it get reverted if posted?
Many thanks for your time. TheFallenCrowd ( talk) 11:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help with my request on ANI. AndrewRT( Talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit confused by our close of these AfD. You say that the question is whether or not he meets WP:ATH. That is certainly a relevant question, but it isn't the only question. For a subject to be included, it must meet either the GNG or one of the more specific guidelines. I think it is a legitimate point of debate whether the GNG is met here and with a 2 to 2 !vote I don't see how you can say there is consensus that it is not met. As such, I would appreciate an explanation. Thanks, ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not ever send me a message telling me I cannot express an opinion in a discussion thread. If you don't like my opinion then post a counter-argument, if you cannot do that then shut up. scooteristi ( talk) 01:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I see that Fidel Castro has been on semi for over half a year, and I realize that continued protection for the remaining half-year may be warranted, especially for a BLP. But I'm wondering if (as User:Splash put it), we can "see how things are going". At least one anon seems interested in improving the article [23], and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other anons who simply haven't taken the extra step of voicing their concerns on the talk page. As Splash also said, "popular articles will always get vandalised", but I'm wondering if we can see whether anons' contributions add up to a net positive for the article--at least for the time being, while there's evidence of anon interest in the page. I have this article on my watchlist, and, if you decide to unprotect it, I'll be glad to let you or RPP know if the vandals start to dominate. Thanks, Cosmic Latte ( talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This AfD was relisted for discussion on 10 December 2009 but you closed it with delete one day later. Can you explain why you acted so prematurely? Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC).
Decided to edit the Marc Sinden article - immediate over rule by Little Grape virtually accusing me of being Sinden. I research Little Grape. Dozens of edit warring warnings and insane lunacy on Jonathan King article, Black and several more. Time someone flushed this crazy out of Wikipedia. Parnathus ( talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Kevin, i'm one of your Talk Page Stalkers. I'm just curious, why did you decide to rename? The Wordsmith Communicate 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I'm not criticizing or anything, based on recent activity I'd just like to see your input here:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Early closures if and when you have a chance.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω)
22:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. :) I noticed that you were the closing administrator on the above listed AfD, and I'd like to ask you to take a second look at the discussion. Your primary reason for deleting was BLP concerns over sourcing and inclusion criteria. However, as far as I understood matters, Wikipedia doesn't delete based on potential problems when there are other possible solutions, and in fact, has precident to not do that.
I'm just asking you to take another look at your decision on the AfD, and if you could, maybe explain why this case is different enough from the one I linked above for this to merit a delete and the other to merit a keep. Thank you! Lithorien ( talk) 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you please confirm you voted in ACE as user:kevin?-- Tznkai ( talk) 05:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean edit=autoconfirmed, move=sysop? Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 07:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You might want to undo your strike as things have been restored to what you had signed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering the fact that you suggested Mccready to appeal to ArbCom, I thought you might be interested to know that he has a case request out here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings,
I noticed that you have used more than one signature..."Kevin" and Rdm2376. Are you the same person?
Wikipedia discourages using multiple accounts to make it appear that multiple persons support a contention. Ryoung122 22:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete Fake steve? If you delete that you should also delete Fake Steve Jobs however neither should really be deleted. Daniel Lyons is the writer of http://www.fakesteve.net/ thus the redirect is proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben b ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andria "Dreamz" Herd, you closed this as redirect when only one person suggested as such. This is not reflectant of the consensus driven discussions held at xfds. The reason I did not want this article redirected there was that the title wasn't a good search term for redirection there. Next time, if you would like to speak your opinion, please leave one, but don't close an AfD against consensus. Thank you. Tavix | Talk 22:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said, "Maybe I should grow a pair." I shall be interested to see what the fall-out is. :) Fences& Windows 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. By the way, Joe Moreno has wasted no time in crowing about the decision to delete the Shepherd article. He was obviously keeping a close eye on developments, and posted the news on at least two of his blogs (
here and
here) on the day of the deletion. In addition, the first comment on
this blog also bears his hallmarks, and links directly to one of those Moreno blogs I've just cited, which is why I've added the cautionary second comment. (By the way, note that this last blog is citing with qualified approval a non-self-published online
article by Shepherd.)
It's worth noting some of Moreno's blog comments:
'It is also very amusing that Simon Kidd accused Wikipedia editors of "collusion" on the AFD for the Kevin R. D. Shepherd article (
Ref). Needless to say, the only people factually shown of "colluding" were Simon Kidd, Alex Jamieson, Brian Steel (aka Ombudswiki) and Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits).'
'Moreno's past argument about Kevin R. D. Shepherd's non-notability has now been vindicated by multiple & independent Wikipedia editors who neutrally investigated the matter thoroughly. Simon Kidd, Alex Jamieson, Brian Steel (aka Ombudswiki) and Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits) banded together and attempted to deceive various Wikipedia editors by resorting to circumlocution and rhetoric. Needless to say, it didn’t work.'
'Now that Wikipedia deleted Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s profile (due to his non-notability), there is little doubt that Kevin R. D. Shepherd will soon write a foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe against Wikipedia that will invariably (and predictably) make accusations of "sectarian polemics". Kevin Shepherd upheld Wikipedia's views and policies when Moreno was banned on Wikipedia for exposing Mel Etitis and his Peter J. King Sockpuppet Cover-Up. Any argument that Kevin R. D. Shepherd may make against Wikipedia will ultimately compromise his former arguments against Moreno and Wikipedia!'
'In conclusion, the self-described "philosopher" Kevin R. D. Shepherd (who admitted he is not an academic) has been shown to be nothing more than a vanity self publisher. To Date: There have been no reliably sourced, third-party media references to Kevin R. D. Shepherd. This is an irrefutable fact that no amount of deflections, distortions or ad hominem attacks is going to change. It is Moreno’s personal opinion that Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s moralistic, puritanical, self-promoting, self-centered, self-serving, bigoted, narrow-minded, dogmatic and poorly researched views will keep him out of the Wikipedia spotlight for years to come.'
[all emphasis in the original]
For the record, although I have had occasional email contact with Alex Jamieson, I have never had contact of any kind with Brian Steel or Robert Priddy. And of course there has been no 'factual' revelation of collusion on my part. Similarly, Moreno's claim elsewhere that I have a sockpuppet account is mistaken. As I have already pointed out, I have retained my original pseudonymous Wikipedia account for a reason unrelated to the Shepherd case - this reason satisfied ArbCom, who registered the alternate account.
You may be interested to know that this issue originated in 2006, when Moreno (as user SSS108) took exception to the citation of one of Shepherd's books in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Shepherd was in complete ignorance of the objection at the time. The original argument can be seen on this page. Moreno was subsequently banned from Wikipedia, and since then he has created multiple websites and blogs as an alternative forum for his views. It now seems that anyone who has sided with Shepherd is a target. Shepherd's own version of events is presented here.
In my opinion, Moreno's prompt blogging only reinforces the suspicion that Wikipedia editors in sympathy with him were involved in the Shepherd AfD nomination. It seems to me that the horse is still whinnying!
Simon Kidd ( talk) 15:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You closed the AfD as Delete last November. I userfied the article at the request of User:Pohta ce-am pohtit. He added some references and has now restored the article to main space. The new refs seem to rule out a G4 deletion, but you may want to take a look and see if the case for notability has been made. If not, take whatever process steps that you think best. I personally think this is a Keep because of the major improvements. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)