User talk:Kevin/Archive 6

Re: Liberal semi-protection
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)

Protection at ME
Thank you! Now hopefully we can resolve issues without needless edit warring and BLP violations. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll look at the whole thing when I get a chance. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you had to lock the article, and would welcome your input if you have a chance to provide it.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

prodding and speedies
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)
 * Just seen your comment on my page. Must have been posting at the same time! Quantpole (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions only, and once a PROD tag has been removed deletion becomes controversial. WP:DELETE has more. WP:CSD would not have applied in any case, as it does not apply to software. Kevin (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you may be right regarding software, but on the general point surely DELETE applies, which seems to say that speedy delete can apply. Can you point to anything specific to show what you mean? Quantpole (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. It's been my assumption for several years, and it's possible I'm wrong. Kevin (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your interpretation is correct. I learn something every day. Kevin (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. It's a situation I hadn't come across before! Quantpole (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at ME?
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)
 * I have offered to mediate there, however for it to be successful you will both need to agree to it, and you both still seem to be too busy sniping at each other. I also need time to read the length discussion that has taken place to date to mediate effectively. Kevin (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Drop a note
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)
 * I saw your initial responses, so I'll wait for Wikifan and see what his/her opinion is. Really, what is needed first for a successful mediation is a statement from both that mediation is desired, and then wait for the next step. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So I'll just say I desire mediation and wait for the next step then.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think Wikifan also wants to head for mediation, but in a more formal sense. Kevin (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain this edit comment please
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 believe that "penis" vandalism on a WP:BLP is significant, and more than 10 similar cases in the past month shows persistance. Are you arguing against the protection, or the edit summary? Kevin (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mohamed ElBaradei
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)
 * Thanks, any input is appreciated. Kevin (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jennifer Fitzgerald
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 agree with Root. Well done. لenna  vecia  19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not well done at all. Can you kindly explain how you came to your conclusion given that as FT2 pointed out there were good versions of the article that didn't even mention the BLP issue? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The delete arguments were essentially that this person was not notable of themselves, but only in connection with Bush. After FT2's rewrite, several editors argued that their opinion had not changed, because the underlying issue was still the same. That, and the new opinions that the article should be deleted after the AfD was re-opened convinced me that the consensus was to delete. Kevin (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Under what guideline or policy does someone being notable primarily due to a connection make them not notable? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A poor choice of words, what I meant was that this person is not notable herself, and is only known at all (in reliable sources) for her connection to Bush. The mentions in articles primarily related to other subjects do not demonstrate notability for Fitzgerald. Kevin (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a problem?
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. Could this pose a problem for the mediation? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem for me. The person behind the IP likely has no control over their IP address, and they did confirm at the mediation page that it is the same person (at least at Talk:Mohamed_ElBaradei. It would be useful for you both to disengage at other articles to avoid spillover, but that is up to you. Discussion of behavior elsewhere will not be helpful at the mediation. Kevin (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait so the user confirmed both IPs were use? I know some routers alternate IPs randomly. It is odd though because at times it seemed the two IPs were unique, often caring different views. I don't know. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't want this to get in the way of mediation either, but it had the appearance that WF followed me to the article and then he started reverting my edits. I politely asked him to then just leave the article alone temporarily, which he has done in words and will hopefully do in action.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of John Cooper Clarke
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)
 * The criteria I use (I've fixed the missing note at the top) includes plain vandalism, and this edit met my criteria. The edit that was the basis of the request I answered does not qualify in that it was by an autoconfirmed user, but shows that the article is underwatched. Kevin (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that seems a bit extreme, but it looks like it's being discussed already. You might like to use a clearer edit summary in future, and maybe actually link to the user essay you're invoking; one anon IP markup-clicking test that lasted six hours and one subtle vandal edit that went unnoticed for six weeks doesn't seem "persistent and significant" from here. --McGeddon (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

markoff
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)
 * A mistake - I clicked rollback by mistake, but never ended up at the confirmation screen so I thought it did not go through. I'd remove my rollback if it wasn't bundled with admin tools. Thanks for the note. Kevin (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob. I tend  to use my rollback sparingly because it's like sudden death - I think I saw somewhere that there's a fix that can be added that will give you an option for an edit summary but I haven't had a chance to really look into it.   Tvoz / talk 07:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ted Leonsis
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)
 * These edits, and  were the reason I protected. The vandalism is persistent in that it remained up for over an hour before being reverted. See User:Lar/Liberal_Semi for my criteria and the request relating to this article. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This was a legitimate edit that the same IP later sourced (probably after they realized that they needed to). Still, two edits, no more severe than the common "i don't like him" vandal, and nothing compared to others on that page like or . On the same note, how is this blatant vandalism?  Grsz  11  03:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not distinguish between different types of vandalism for BLPs, so mild or severe all receive the same treatment. On the second issue you will need to explain the relevance of that diff to me. This one is the reason protecting Joe_Elliott. Kevin (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With a comment at RFPP, I brought the issue up at WP:ANI. I don't fault you, I just think it's something that needs comments so no wheel-warring results.  Grsz 11  16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wheel warring is bad. No need for it. If consensus ends up that a particular article doesn't need the protection we think it does, that's fine. It will be interesting to see if the vandalism resumes. ++Lar: t/c 17:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know you could have just asked directly. Kevin (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal in Worcester diocese
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 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)
 * That source supports neither the article title nor most of the allegations within the article. I will not restore based on that alone. Kevin (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also this      It goes on and on. Not accepting these sources shows a bias on your part. ADM (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not made any comment on these sources as yet. My deletions are based on the content of the article as it was when I deleted it. It is not any bias, I am acting in accordance with policy. Kevin (talk) 03:42, 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 page about Dupre was a mere biography page and your deletion is clearly abusive. You could have added some kind of POV tag but you chose to delete it without warning. For this, your capacities as administrator should come under question. ADM (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to just have this discussion in one place? WP:BLP/N is fine. Kevin (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruption of mediation?
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)
 * It certainly will not make mediation easier. I'll comment there shortly. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I won't edit there while mediation is going on. Though I would hope the IP would do the same, for now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC) :D
 * Thanks. I'm not going to ask the IP for the same, because of their long history editing that article. I have asked the IP not to make any further reports regarding you without running them by me first. I've added a request at the mediation when you get a chance. Kevin (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, if I didn't have a long history editing the article and if WF didn't have no history editing the article then this wouldn't have been a perceived problem. I also tried to kindly take the issue up with WF first. Anyways, I will be sure to bring the issue here first if (and hopefully there won't be) a next time.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. It will make mediation easier. Kevin (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page
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)

Slyvester Stallone
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)

Responded to your comment on Tim Burton
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)

Philip Markoff again
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)

James A. Owen
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)

José Reyes (shortstop)
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)
 * I've unprotected, we'll see how it goes. Kevin (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting - 4 vandalism attacks since unprotection occurred.-- VS talk 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much as I expected. Also interesting is that the 3 articles I have noticed being unprotected by request are all sports people. Kevin (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep me too. For this one I almost re-protected (even outside of our work at Lar's page vandalism is pretty well at the excessive level IMO).  I left it because of the discussion you had had and the fact that others were also reverting - nevertheless I'd be happy to protect again if the same types of edits continue.-- VS  talk 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Protection was clearly justified. Vandalism continues, and it's taking an excessive amount of time for it to be reverted.  Enigma msg  00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It already meets my criteria for re-protection, but I'm waiting for the vandals to make me a stronger case. Kevin (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

On a related note...
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)
 * Yes, the vandalism level was lower than that, but was still significant. Out of interest, what level do you think would be acceptable? Kevin (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, protection is justified only if multiple IP's every day for at least 48 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewlp1991 (talk • contribs)
 * I totally disagree when we are talking about living people, but we'll see what happens now I have unprotected. Hopefully better than the one above. Kevin (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so good.  Enigma msg  21:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now re-protected. Kevin (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Abtract's arbitration enforcement
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)
 * The arbitration remedy defined interaction as Abtract editing or reverting an article that AH had recently edited. This is what the diff shows. As this was after several previous blocks for breaching the same remedy, I took a broad view of "interaction". Kevin (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The diff shows that Abtract and EGMichaels recently edited. The article's edit history (which the complainant did not include) shows the most recent edit by AH is three months old, and AH's edits then were reverted by other editors, not Abtract. (I'm also not sure that broadening the definition of interaction is needed here either, but that's beside my primary question.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ? (Four months, not three months.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still feel that the block was appropriate, but perhaps you should seek the opinion of another WP:AE regular? Kevin (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to unblock him myself, but I thought I would check with you first. Is there a reason for blocking him, or is the arbitration enforcement to become "to never edit an article that AH has ever edited"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I though I had made my reasons clear, but go ahead and unblock if you really want to. I suggest re-opening the WP:AE request also if you do. Kevin (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason you gave was that the diff provided shows Abtract editing or reverting an article that AH had recently edited. The diff doesn't show any editing by AH, and the article history shows that AH's most recent edits were from January (not recent) and reverted by other editors (no interaction from Abtract). Right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that Abtract was gaming the system by making that edit, and that the block was appropriate. As I have already said. As I also said I have used my interpretation of the remedy, and if your is different you may unblock. Kevin (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan
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)
 * I hear your frustration. I'm not ready to give up yet though. Kevin (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Kevin I've responded to your post a few edits up and would hope you respond in kind. NPguy, I've done the same for you. You've held on to the inaccuracy that the coverage has been limited to Israeli-based media and interests. I devoted 3 well-crafted paragraphs explaining to you simply why that is a complete falsehood. Overall, I'd say I've been the one "talking sense." I always use policy and sources to back up my rationale. Everything I say is supported by available information. Not opinion, not agenda, just what is out there. I do agree, however that this is a major waste of time and am disappointed that the discussion has not followed a more-strict path of policy instead of relying on every user's POV regardless if it conflicts with reliable sources and standard (and indisputable) policies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this "strict path of policy" you mention? Multiple editors have said that policies are open to some interpretation and require editorial judgement to implement. Those same editors have also said that their opinion is that the El Baradei-Israel connection does not warrant it's own section. Your continued repeating of the same arguments in the face of this opposition seems to me to be tendentious editing. I think you should consider accepting the opinion of the majority, and let us move on. Kevin (talk) 00:36, 22 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:


 * The sources are editorials and are therefore not reliable or relevant - Wrong. The sources are not editorials, or "op-eds" as many users like to say. And even if they were, it wouldn't matter, at least not to the degree of completely ignoring them.


 * The information is predominantly covered by only Israel-based media and has not been followed by "world media" - Wrong as well. Reliable mainstream sources from North America to Australia published unique stories on ME/Israel.


 * The sources are criticism of ME and therefore violate policy x. Wrong again. The information is not characterized by POV or individual arguments. The reports are objective and generally factual, those who interpret criticism or negatives does not mean the sources themselves qualify as critical opinion. Though it might paint a bad/good (depending on who you are) image of ME, it still has nothing to do with criticism policy.


 * BLP policies are subject to interpretation by editors. Wrong, with exceptions. The 3 core policies of BLP: NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR are policies. They are generally-accepted standards and are not meant to be a guide (and therefore prone to interpretation) by users. If I remember correctly, you referred to the policies as a guide and are allowed to be "interpreted."

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)
 * If you really feel that I am acting tendentiously, then either you will need to leave the mediation, or arrange another mediator / method of mediation. Kevin (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you accusing me of acting tedious when I was simply responding to your questions which were tedious and repetitive in nature is inappropriate and wrong. If that is your only complaint, can I assume you agree with the simplified post above? In terms of mediation, I have no qualm with your involvement. I'd like to see more users become involved outside of the IP (who is the only consistent contributor) and another admin to review alleged-BLP violations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, are you going to ignore what I wrote above? I essentially condensed the entire side and complaints (fairly, I hope) of the Israel/ME section dispute which he endorsed. If you want to be a mediator that is okay, I agreed to that. But if you take a side, stick to it or concede. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am going to ignore your list above. I have little interest in mediating a dispute where one party feels I am acting tendentiously and taking sides. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, wait are you denying you've taken a side? You've endorsed the IP's POV without question. I have no problem with that, but are you disputing this? Look, you accused me of acting tedious and I explained why that wasn't the case. If you wish to no longer mediate I would hope you wait on resigning until we can find another, though I'd prefer we don't do that. I think I've done a pretty good job explaining the dispute so your decision to "ignore" is troubling at best. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Desiree Washington
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 Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. PirateSmackK Arrrr! 08:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protection at Mohamed ElBaradei?
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)

Why the blanking of "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert"?
I would like to know why you made this edit at 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)
 * As my edit summary said, it was by request of the subject. You can easily see the content in the history, as I'm sure you know. Kevin (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a second—why should that request automatically get carried out? As I'm sure you're aware, that discussion is now hidden in the history and is not easy for other people to find. Tennis Expert did the crime, so it is important for others to be able to find out the history of the issue without digging. I repeat that I don't see the point of "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate" closely followed by blanking the page. Exactly what is the problem with leaving the page?  HWV258  06:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing at TE is no longer here, there is no importance whatsoever in others being able to find out the history. With all this talk of "crimes", I might start thinking this is some kind of personal vendetta. Good thing we have WP:AGF and all that. Kevin (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You obviously weren't on the receiving end of TE's actions. So many of us poor unfortunates were—and never forget that there's a reason for his sanctions. So am I to understand from your point above that I can get my original request addressed if TE decides to reappear (at any time in the future)? (Still waiting to hear why it hurts to leave the page—especially if TE is no longer active)  HWV258  06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just caught your change on my watchlist. Your edit summary suggests the request was made by Tennis expert. May I ask when you were contacted and what reason was given? The user still has all of his editing rights intact, and I'm certain if he had removed it himself, it would have been reverted in seconds flat. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The request was made over at WR, earlier today. There was no particular reason given, but it was probably prompted by some of User:Kelly Martin's user pages being deleted. Kevin (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I don't get... WR meaning Wikipedia Review? If that's the case, what's that got to do with us? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right. They have nothing to do with us, except that I saw the request there, and felt it was appropriate to act on it. I would have done the same no matter how I came to be aware of the request. Kevin (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't even bother to look, and will take your word for it. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The request was made over at WR, earlier today". I'm sorry, but I'm not following the link between User:Kelly Martin and User:Tennis expert. Could you please provide the diff of the request? Thanks.  HWV258  22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say "You can easily see the content in the history...", are you saying that WP's search facility can find things in the history (e.g. in non-current text)? If not, then your point is moot as it would only be people who know about TE's past who could find it. Would anyone, say, that gets annoyed by TE's future actions (and he's entitled to reappear at any time) be able to (easily) search for TE's track record and find it?  HWV258  22:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If TE reappears then it's a different story. Right now, there is no value in keeping the page unblanked. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As you have failed to address my question, I have to repeat that there is value as "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate" is no longer relevant.  HWV258  22:50, 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)
 * You want an RfC on the blanking of an RfC? This is just hilarious. Kevin (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't want that. Whether we get there though is up to the actions of others now.  HWV258  05:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin, I may have missed it, but can you point us to a URL featuring the request please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To what purpose? Kevin (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we have been experiencing a number of edits which seem to do nothing other than impersonate User:Tennis expert recently. I'm uncertain as to how you validated that the request came from the user in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No title
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)
 * I've fixed some of them. Kevin (talk) 06:44, 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)


 * According to Kevin in his first chiming in, this is about reliably reported (i.e. by some source other than a blog), and whether a whole paragraph carries undue weight. The newer sources, specifically from MSN.COM and from ABCNEWS meet what he claimed and what others also agreed with him on, meet the Reliably Reported Standard.   As to Undue Weight, it says we have to judge based on the reliability of the information, not the number of editors, that is right in the UNDUE WEIGHT criteria, with a specific quote as

""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)

Jurij Moskon
Inre 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)
 * Nice work. I've changed my vote. Kevin (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply had the time to dig a bit deeper. I'd love it if Slovenian editors help with sourcing, as Google Translate is not always 100%. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Megan Fox
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)

Your sock message...
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)
 * Sorry, hard to read another admin's mind, I know, but I was hoping to see how many of the CU-confirmed socks he was going to admit to. That's a pretty standard interrogation technique: ask a question for which you already know some info, and the subject doesn't know how much you know.  That quickly either establishes them as untruthful (if they omit something or lie) or may tell you more than you knew already.  At any rate, that was what I was hoping to accomplish. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah well, sorry I fucked up the plan. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, but really unnecessary--again, not like you could read my mind, and it seems to have been an inconsequential issue. I still don't see any further evidence of good faith forthcoming, I'm not inclined to unblock him. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Czechtalent Zlín
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)

Megan Fox
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)
 * Bullshit. There is no real consensus, and even if there were you must supply a reliable source when adding the material. Go and read the policy on biographies of living people before you come back. Kevin (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reported, and you need to learn to read talk pages, dude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kww#Your_Edits  AND on the megan fox page.  Now stop reverting what we've all agreed upon accept you.
 * I read that. Like I said, regardless of your understanding of consensus, you cannot add unsourced information about living people. Period. Now go away and make that report you promised. Kevin (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. 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. 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)
 * As it clearly was my intention, I think this message has missed it's target. Kevin (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

World Soccer Daily
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)
 * Hi Mikerichi, I'm no longer an admin. You'll need to report this at WP:RFPP. Cheers Kevin (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't notice that at the top of your talk page. Cheers.  Mikerichi (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with BLPs!

 * Thanks Lar. It's a pity it didn't gain more widespread support. Kevin (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was discussed on the functionaries-en list and I think the protection standards at RFPP have moved a bit in the good direction, and it collected some good data so I think it was useful. Best. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

hi there.
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)

Deletion review for Kristen McNamara
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)

Thanks for your help with BLPs!

 * Thanks Lar. It's a pity it didn't gain more widespread support. Kevin (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was discussed on the functionaries-en list and I think the protection standards at RFPP have moved a bit in the good direction, and it collected some good data so I think it was useful. Best. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you back
- welcome back to mopping tasks.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 10:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve. I got talked into it, hopefully I'll fnd a path that suits me. Kevin (talk) 00:48, 26 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)

Olga Rutterschmidt
Hello there. I am leaving this message to you because you voted in 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)
 * And I'm glad to see you back around working hard with cleaning up our BLPs. NW ( Talk ) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

John Arvin Nery
Obviously I'm fine with closing 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)
 * Seemed clear to be the same user to me, on a dynamic IP. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I thought they were different, because one wanted it kept and the other wanted it gone. Ah, the joys of IP edits. :) -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Equally plausible I guess. That's why I kept A7 for a fallback. Kevin (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kristen McNamara
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'm taking the article to a Deletion Review
 * I've answered at the deletion review. Kevin (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In case you aren't following it, I've responded with a further question there. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pedobaiting article
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)
 * Problem is that is is a magnet for BLP violations. Had the rest been sourced at all I would have done as you suggest. Kevin (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean you feel that people would have started adding cases to the article? And if so, there are articles here that list well-documented cases of scandals, controversies, or even a case about this specific topic...such as the To Catch a Predator article (as pedobaiting does not only refer to true pedophiles). Some of the information on those cases in that article needs sourcing, though. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is that that article has a definite scope of those portrayed on the show rather than just anybody. It is woefully sourced though. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured you would note the difference in scope, but I still felt that I would point out that article as an example. My point is that I have seen plenty of articles at this site list famous or other such documented BLP cases relating to them...such as the Teenage pregnancy article. Granted, most of the BLP cases in that article were not controversial (especially the Pre-20th century section, where it was apparently not that much of an outrage for a man to take on a 13-year-old girl as his bride or to get her pregnant). But, anyway, I am not saying that just because other articles do this means that it is right. And, I stated before, I do not feel strongly one way or the other that you deleted the Pedobaiting article. I simply felt the need to address you with what I was thinking when I saw it now deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Rosas
You closed 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)
 * Not exactly, but they did flag that the sources were inadequate to show notability. I was articulating what I saw as the basis for those opinions. Kevin (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who flagged the sources as inadequate?  None of the editors advocating deletion addressed the sources that were raised in the discussion. The only editor contesting the sources actually changed from delete to keep after reviewing them more thoroughly.-- Whpq (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 editors offered unqualified delete opinions based on notability. Do you feel that they did not consider the content of all the sources? Kevin (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe they considered the sources that were presented in the AFD. But that isn't material.  The delete was closed because "The 2 main sources noted here as proof of notability seem to confer notability on Rosas Farms rather than Al Rosas specifically, as he is not the main subject of either article.", and nobody, including the editors advocating delete based on notability advanced that as a reason for deletion.  I have no issue with an editor evaluating the sources and coming to that conclusion and advocating deletion.  However, advancing it as a reason for closure when the issue was not even raised is not proper. -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I closed it because I believed the arguments that the subject failed WP:BIO (i.e. insufficient depth of coverage) overrode the other opinions. I knew that those particular articles would raise question, so I made particular note of them. Perhaps I should have expanded my reasoning. Kevin (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I still feel it is out of process, and I'm sorry, but I'll take this to DRV. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise, seems opinion is on your side there anyway. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking an article to DRV isn't something I take lightly. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Al Rosas
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)

Kristen McNamara
Hi Kevin, if you have a chance there is a question for you at the DrV...Hobit (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Focus Lighting AfD
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)
 * I would have, but don'replyt know what your rationale would have been. Kevin (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ronald I. Meshbesher
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
 * What you need to do is offer your opinion at Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_I._Meshbesher, showing how he passes either of these notability guidelines: WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Unfortunately I do not think he does. You need to find something published where Meshbesher is the subject, and it is more than a trivial mention. I see hundreds og Google News hits, but they are mostly the type of passing mention you would expect to see of any trial lawyer. Kevin (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy
Hey - I sent you a couple of e-mails - did you get them? -- >David  Shankbone  23:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, was it today? Kevin (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe wiki email is a bit slow - send them to kevin@hennanights.com Kevin (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephanie Birkitt
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)
 * No I didn't. Obviously my opinion of what makes a person notable is different to the majority there, although I am uncertain as to how that makes my opinion "absurd". Kevin (talk) 20:12, 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)
 * I actually used the term "notable", which has a different and specific meaning here than "known to the public". Prior to recent events my opinion is that Birkitt was not notable as guided by WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, I seem to be fighting a loosing battle there, and not even a quality, going-down-in-a-blaze-of-glory style one, either. I'm just going down hard!  I think I'm starting to look more and more deranged :P . . . .  I'm really not understanding the grounds for the vociferous defense the article is mounting there, given WP:N and a few other associated policies.  Seems like a bunch of Letterman fans wanting to think that a frequently-recurring guest star is actually somehow encyclopedically notable.  I should probably just take a step back (and stop telling other people to take a step back, lest I be accused of MPOV).
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 02:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Thanks for that protection on Austin St. John; I've been frustrated with the extremely dubious / libelous vandalism there for a while. It really got annoying when someone uploaded the pic and repeatedly uploaded it to the image.  It took me a few days of ranting on Commons before I could get them to just speedy delete it as a copy-vio uploaded solely for (particularly egregious) BLP vandalism.
 * Yes, that battle looks to be lost. Kevin (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Global warming unprotection request
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) 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)

Proposed deletion of List of programs broadcast by RedeTV!
I understand and agree with you. No problem to delete. Sorry.Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection level of global warming
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)
 * No I didn't, thanks for the note. I've restored the pre-existng semi-protection. Kevin (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice =)
I like your style. Why do you call yourself a "former administrator"? ƒ(Δ)² 16:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't got around to changing that yet. One day.... Kevin (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur)
Another editor has created Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur), which has the same name as an article which was deleted earlier as the result of 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 thought the recent AfD decided on the issue of notability for this person, in the negative. I looked at every reference in the new version, and see nothing at all that would indicate that he is notable. What you do from here is up to you though. Kevin (talk) 04:02, 13 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
 * Notability is determined for biographies using the guidelines at WP:BIO. Bentley has not been the subject of reliable secondary source material in sufficient depth to show that he is notable. I did look at each and every reference, however in each case where the material was not self-published (i.e. a press release, Facebook etc), Bentley was not the subject, and was only mentioned in passing. If you feel that the deletion discussion linked above was closed in error, then you need to go to WP:DRV rather than recreate the article. Kevin (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Kevin, discussion going on on my talk page as well. Just thought I should add, I am aware I may have erred, I didn't notice the fact you'd declined the speedy until after I'd seen it as recreation of deleted material. I have userfied the article currently so the editor may carry on working on it to assert notability, though if you want as you declined the speedy I have no problems bringing it back to article space, and take it back through AFD process. Regards Khu  kri  08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall declining a speedy on this one, think that was Eastmain. I deleted after a consensus at AfD. Kevin (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Kari Ferrell
Hi. I was just commenting on 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)
 * I don't think that would have turned the tide, but you're welcome to make the argument. It's open again. Kevin (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks J04n(talk page) 02:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Samantha Henderson
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)
 * See User:Vermiculite/Samantha_Henderson Kevin (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by RedeTV! Deprod
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 Articles for deletion. Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

JaMarcus Russell
Thank you for semi-protecting this page. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Let me know if you see any other candidates for long term protection. Kevin (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How about Ray Lewis (American football)? There have been multiple recent edits and over the last few months calling him a murderer. Also I plan on un-disam'ing Ray Lewis (where there was also the same recent vandalism), so it'll be great if you can protect that as well.  Thanks.  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done the article, but not the disambig yet. I'll keep an eye on that one. Kevin (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allied Artists International
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 Articles for deletion/. 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)

Talkback
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)

Image Copyright
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
 * what do you mean by "legitimate". It is clearly a magazine cover, and therefore not public domain. I placed the deletion notice to inform you of the problem, and give you an opportunity to remedy it. Kevin (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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
 * Having a single cover is covered by Wikipedia's fair use policy, which I explained yesterday, and also said that you could ask me for help on that issue. When you upload a magazine cover you need to select the appropriate license, and then add a fair use rationale to explain why a copyrighted image is being used. Kevin (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, ok thanks for the tip, I will follow that procedure Modelmanager (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager

I always try to edit neutral, I always try to don't be a... etc.
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)
 * Really, where did I label you as a bad editor? By "kind of editor" I meant "one who ignores WP:BLP", which you have stated that you are. How did you feel that calling me a dick would help the situation? Kevin (talk) 23:36, 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)
 * Thanks. See you around. Kevin (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I have moved the discussion to WP:BLP/N though, probably a better venue. Kevin (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Marc Sinden puffery
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)

The page was deleted
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

Another deletion whinge
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)
 * Sure - User:Misarxist/Wadih Saadeh. Kevin (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Keith Bardwell
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 Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident).

Thanks for your time, and I await your response. Postdlf (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * RE-reading the AfD, I still see very little argument on the keep side that argues that BLP1E should not apply. On the other hand, almost every argument for deletion cites BLP1E as the reason. As I stated, the policy argument in this case is the stronger. Kevin (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? It might save us the trouble of a deletion review, particularly if you could respond to my readings of BLP1E and the second point above.  Thanks, Postdlf (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The closing admin's job os not to decide how a particular policy applies, but to determine consensus. Those who make arguments decide how they each apply whichever policy they are arguing. As to your second point, I find that biographies are usually a poor starting point for an article on an incident, as they tend to become just a renamed version of the original. Kevin (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. This close ignored the argument that the event is notable, and the article should either be reworked to be about the event rather than Bardwell, or the material should be merged into another article such as Interracial marriage in the United States. BLP1E does not say that events cannot be covered, only that articles should not be about people only known for one event. Your opinion on whether biographies can be reworked into successful articles about events is not relevant. Variants on "Keep but rename" were common. If you do not reopen I will open a deletion review. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving an argument less weight is not the same as ignoring it. I am happy to provide the deleted content to be merged elsewhere, or reworked in user space but I will not be re-opening the AfD, as I do not see how that would alter the consensus formed there. Kevin (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In your closing rationale you seemed to only consider the binary choice of keep or delete, whereas the third option of preserving content was not mentioned. It is absolutely correct that we should not have an article on Bardwell, but I read the debate - including comments by some of those arguing for deletion - as giving consensus that the event was notable, even if BLP1E means that Bardwell should not have a biography. Could you put the article in the Article Incubator at Article Incubator/Refusal of interracial marriage in Louisiana? I'll rework it to scrap the bio content and I'll consider merge targets. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Kevin (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Captainclegg
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)
 * We cannot use blogs to source information about living people, particularly controversial or contested material. Kevin (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Dragoslav Sekularac - photo property of BelgradeArt.png
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)
 * The image was watermarked with a copyright, and copyright was also asserted in the upload edit summary. The image should really have been deleted ages ago anyway. Kevin (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Hekerui (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of AfD and Citation Needed Tags by a user
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)

Crime in Louisiana?
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)
 * Has he been indicted for any offence related to this? Or convicted? If not, then the category is inappropriate. Kevin (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please salt Eric Zaccar
Hello, … Less that 24 hours after Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar was closed as Delete, one of the sockpuppets -  - has recreated it … I've tagged it with uw-repost, but would you please WP:SALT it? Thnx!

Happy Editing! &mdash;  00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On a different note, you did realize that there were three articles there, not one yes? Your closing statement seemed to indicate otherwise. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, but my close only refers to the NYT article which has the most discussion. Kevin (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to amend the close as "This boils down to deciding if 1 newspaper article can confer notability" implies pretty clearly that there is only one article. Hobit (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Greg Augustine
Please move the article 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)
 * I disagree with relisting BLPs, which is why I have been systematically closing them where I see them. I'll look into incubating that article shortly. Kevin (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Request
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)
 * Thanks for your opinion. If you have something specific, feel free to let me know. Kevin (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what isn't specific? Are you looking for further examples of problems or something else? Hobit (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was just a general note in case you had anything further. Kevin (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well I'd further include you seem to almost only close BLP discussion and always (as far as I could see) close them as delete. In addition there are a number of doubts about your closes on those BLPs expressed on this page.  I think the situation is pretty clear and I'd like to urge you to consider stepping away from the BLP closes for a while. Hobit (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to do that. Considering how many I have closed recently, I think the number of complaints fairly small. Kevin (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Missed one!
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.

Disputing your deletion of Ted Andrews
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:


 * 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. YES! A very resounding YES!
 * 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. ABSOLUTELY. He wrote THE go-to compilations of animal guide meanings, dream interpretations, and much, much more.
 * 3) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. YES!  Every new publication of his is WIDELY respected and reviewed in virtually every metaphysical and alternative spirituality circle. He is a household name in those fields! This is not an exaggeration, I promise you.
 * 4) The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. YES!

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)


 * The close of the deletion discussion with a result of delete reflects the consensus of that discussion. While I agree there wasn't very much discussion, and it is perhaps sad that the subject recently died, the closure was correct. If you disagree, the proper venue is deletion review. Frank  |  talk  14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Frank. Kevin (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review
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    DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not why he brought it there at all. I've just pissed a few people off, so they are doing some pushing back. It all seems a bit petty to me. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the ultimate reason behind it may be, that was the rationale given by those supporting an overturn. I commented there that a request that you not close early might have been more appropriate. In general, especially if you think there are people who are going to question your every move, it is well to follow the letter of rules such as that. I will say that I myself have found it very helpful to offer as few opportunities for complaint as possible. BTW, though h=not yet literally required, it also helps to give explanations in the close, even when the closurees are obvious, as with the one below. Same reason. I find Twinkle makes it especially easy to do so.     DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Emilio B. Moure
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))
 * It is not up to me as I only followed the direction from the deletion discussion here - Articles for deletion/Emilio B. Moure. If you feel that I did not follow the consensus in that discussion, then follow the link to deletion review from the section above. Kevin (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (if I may intervene) The Kevin closure was totally right in my opinion. Perhaps -if admin here agrees- you can recreate the article in your userspace, address concerns on AfD adding sources, and then ask for a review. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Bamford closure
I agree with your recent 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! -- Cycl o pia talk  13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I've seen too many cases where the close is sneakily reverted, so that I have come to prefer this method. If you like I can restore the earlier history, but then I need to leave it in place to maintain attribution for the merged material. Kevin (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. No problem, if needed I guess one can ask for a userfied page. Thanks. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Party Dark
You closed the AfD as delete, but you didn't delete the article. Joe Chill (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not sure why the script didn't delete it. Kevin (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD closes
Would you care to explain your closes at Articles for deletion/Hivehom, 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)

No title
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)


 * I'm not sure whether this is suitable, but I suggest moving it to mainspace and see how it goes. Let me know if you need help doing that. Kevin (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

HAP article
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)

Deletion of ZaRP!
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)

Ray Joseph Cormier AfD
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)
 * Here's the link.
 * To the extent that this was no consensus, I would be very concerned about closing as delete, in light of other recent discussions. But I do think it's worth remembering that only three of the keep votes came from people who weren't canvassed (and one of those was "weak keep").  I was surprised not to see this as part of the rationale.  regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a deliberate choice to ignore any canvassing that had gone on, and base my close on the strength of the arguments alone. The arguments revolved around whether the several media mentions added up to notability. As the notability guidelines are just that, and have no bright line to delineate the notable from the non-notable, I looked at why those on each side felt that the same guideline supported their opinion. Quite simply, the delete arguments were stronger, in that they explained why they felt that the several media mentions did not add up to notability. Kevin (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When another user explained the process for deletion, i.e. an uninvolved Administrator reviewing all pertinent information, I was confident while there was only one more !vote to delete than to keep, WP:N would prevail and the article would be kept to be cleaned up and improved. There are many more independent reliable news sources in existence than was shown in the version just deleted. Being the subject, it was not COI on my part to want the article to be drawn on the references available, and unfortunately, in my zeal to exhort others to do it, I may have rubbed some people the wrong way. The problem has been all the references are pre-internet and not available online for free. Please have a look here, In particular, I ask you pay close attention to the big difference in header between #1 & #2, the independent, reliable news source in Canada´s Capital chose on their own to use.

User_talk:Steve_Smith Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Kevin (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin, I am really surprised by your brief comment. I will try to be clearer and more exact in my words. I asked you to consider the difference between references #1 & #2 in the news story headers chosen by the major, independent reliable news source in Canada´s Capital one week apart, as they bare witness to my activity then in a ¨news¨ report.

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

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)


 * Thanks. that's a bit clearer. When an AfD is closed the job of the closing admin is not to assess the merits of the article, but to determine the outcome of the deletion debate. It is the job of those participating in the debate to weigh up whether those articles you mention show notability. In this case the debate centered around a somewhat subjective guideline of notability, and therefore the arguments explaining why a subject is or is not notable are much stronger than an argument that simply states that the subject is or is not notable. I didn't see any indication that those making arguments had ignored the media coverage, but that they had seen and assessed that coverage. Kevin (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin, please bear with me, but your comment is such a loud invitation for me to reply. I apologize for copy and paste, but I feel this partial comment from Hobit´s Talk should be part of this record.

What I find most disturbing about the process is four delete opinions were based on this comment


 * Weak Delete - The number of references to reliable sources almost caused me to make a kneejerk "keep" argument. Normally I would say that they would clinch this as an establishment of notability. But I looked into the long discussion on the talk page, and the last two AfDs. Particularly compelling was something that KillerChihuahua said in the first deletion discussion:

'''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.


 * This is why I put considerable weight in the variety of references. He's garnered media coverage from every corner of Canada, which I think makes him somewhat more than a local character, and these references have come from several different years, making him not a flash in the pan. As for what he did - well, he ran for office and lost, caused a ruckus at a variety of events, and travelled across the country acting like a prophet. Most importantly, though, he got coverage from multiple reliable third party sources while doing so. Also, your characterization of the sources as "small newspapers" is off—the majority of them are major dailies in markets of well over one million. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Kevin, things are not alway apparent at first sight. On reviewing your words, ¨the arguments explaining why a subject is or is not notable are much stronger than an argument that simply states that the subject is or is not notable¨ If it is true that with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged, again, on second glance, your comment above is a very loud invitation to comment. By that standard and bar you set, the delete !votes of User:Ironholds and User:Frmatt must be discounted. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand by my close of that AfD, and I do not intend to dissect each and every argument. Kevin (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Kevin, I've listed this at DrV as I think the close should have been "no consensus". Hobit (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Kevin (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted
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)
 * Thanks for picking that up. Kevin (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert
Is there a reason for this revert? Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, my fingers are too fat for my tiny phone. Wish I could turn off rollback on admin accounts. Thanks for the note. Kevin (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism
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)
 * Unfair? I don't think so. There is much speculation in the media as to whether it is terrorism or not, and until the media move one way or the other we should not be labelling it as such. Your assertion that yelling "Allahu Akbar" makes a killing into a terrorist act seems like WP:OR to me. Kevin (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In 1978, the U.S. Columnist Joseph Kraft, having access to the people in power, wrote a column in The Ottawa Citizen with the header, ¨Radicals in Check - Islamic Revival no Threat to the West¨ In retrospect, he and his sources in power were wrong at that time.

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! Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no interest whatsoever in your racist crap. Go and find somewhere else for it. Kevin (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this reply typical of your application of WP:NPOV?
 * What the fuck are you talking about NPOV for? Racist crap is my (apt) description of what you wrote above. Kevin (talk) 02:31, 11 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)
 * And I would equally tell those people to go fuck themselves, if they sprouted their racist crap all over my talk page.


 * Now in case I haven't made myself clear, fuck off. All of you. Kevin (talk) 04:45, 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
I'd appreciate your response to the discussion you began on my talkpage. Thanks Kevin McCready (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't begin it. But I will comment further if you like. Kevin (talk) 03:48, 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!

Brittny Gastineau
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)
 * Yes, I've made a comment to that effect at the BLP noticeboard. Kevin (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Whoops! We must have just crossed paths. I appreciate it! Dayewalker (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
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)

WP:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel
Re your close of this AfD -- Teitel has now been charged with an impressive array of offenses, stretching over many years:. 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)
 * It's hard to ignore all of those delete opinions at the debate, but if there is new info, that would be appropriate to present at WP:DRV. I don't quite agree with your view of BLP1E. As it is a subjective guideline, it really does come to the weight of arguments. Kevin (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1E subjective here? Straight countable to me. See next. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A very surprising closure to me. Could you clarify:
 * 1) . If it were a ONEEVENT, then which event would that be? I found not one editior naming a specific single event.
 * 2) . Please clarify the unclearness of WP:BLP1E here. When I use that guideline, it is fully usable here (concluding not 1E).
 * 3) . You wrote ""weak keep", and one mentions BLP1E concerns [in his week keep arguments, DePiep]": if that editor, after concerning, concludes a keep, how come you turn that to the opposite (i.e. into weighing against keep)? -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At several recent AfDs there has been discussion of whether a series of criminal acts followed by a trial comprises a single event for the purposes of applying WP:BLP1E. There have been editors on both sides of this debate, showing that the policy does not have a bright line, but must be interpreted by contributors to a deletion debate. It is not the place of the closing admin to draw the line, but to determine where the debate participants have done so. As for the "weak keep" mention, when weighing up the arguments I placed less weight on those whose opinion was "weak keep", and noted that one keep argument did feel that there may be BLP1E concerns. In my opinion, this weakens that keep argument in that rather than refute the main point of debate, it acknowledges it. Kevin (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked three straight questios and you (an admin!) answer is only this? -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think I've answered your questions, and have nothing else to add. Kevin (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh? so answers 1. 2. 3. are? -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are disinclined to take your answers from what I have written, then perhaps you are being affected by your preconception of what those answers should be. Kevin (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again: your answers to 1.2. and 3 are? -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For starters, to help you: What is the ONEEVENT it is about? -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * No sir. I disagree with your behaviour and conclusions here. These people overthere, at AfD: I did argue. Here I ask clear questions, and you shy away. I disagree with your closing of this AfD, and you evoke the discussion or responsability. A WP:VFD then.

DePiep (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not shied away, I just haven't answered in exactly the form you feel you require. It is clear that no matter what I say here you will disagree with the closing, as is your right, so to me there is little point in further discussion. I think your link above was meant to be WP:DRV. Kevin (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, Your link is better: WP:DRV. I am not used to delete-reviews. Then: it's not about your form of answering: it is your not answering. What is the one event? -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - I have opened a deletion revire at Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_13. Kevin (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We take this as a REVIEW of your conclusion. So somewhere (on internet) you might be right. Please provide the link. -DePiep (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are asking here. I have opened a deletion review so that other editors can examine my actions. What more is it you want? Kevin (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)and the ONEEVENT is: ... (applause after filling in) -DePiep (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I give up. Kevin (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only after question 1?! A free re-chance: what is the single ONE EVENT? -DePiep (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary and unhelpful. Sorry. Stroked. -DePiep (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sniff Petrol
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)
 * Thanks. Kevin (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

George Lee
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)
 * I'm of the opinion that the draft version does not address the concerns that were raised at the AfD, being that his accomplishments do not show notability. I think you should run this by some of the contributors to the AfD and see what their opinion is. Kevin (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Heydon Prowse
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)

Liquid
-- Marie Poise (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Marc Sinden edit warring
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)


 * You two are so clearly unable to work collaboratively that I see few options. I have made suggestions previously regarding working together that were ignored, and no changes in the attitude of either of you. Kevin (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You may agree that user:Captainclegg is clearly extremely close to Sinden, which makes any collaboration extremely difficult. Even if collaboration is impossible, it should be fairly easy to trim false, misleading and unencyclopaedic content out of the article without screams of 'vandal' arising every single time? If it were just me then fine, but myriad other editors have found this and other Sinden-related articles have Clegg (and his previously exposed socks) all over them as gatekeepers. I'm not sure what the solution is apart from opening a case? Little grape (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with 'East', the 1975 play by Steven Berkoff, is that the article was hijacked and written to a) feature Sinden's much later production instead of the original, b) insert Sinden's website instead of the writer's website, c) falsely insert Sinden as a writer in the 'category' section, d) falsely claim that the DVD was a 'best seller', and finally e) link to his own website - again. I corrected this at [] but Clegg repeatedly reverted. Little grape (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Without taking into account the rightness or otherwise of your edits, to me it looks like I warned you for edit warring with Captainclegg, and you immediately went and reverted at another article. Do you see the problem with that? Kevin (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand and appreciate that view from your viewpoint; perhaps you might take also into account the view that the editor in question has been previously blocked for socking in support of Sinden-related articles (months before I took any interest) and appears to simply traipse around reverting perfectly good edits designed to remove puffery/PR guff? All I can really do is again indicate to you my original edit, and leave it to you and others to judge whether the edits should have been reverted. As I said above, I'm not sure what the solution is to this sort of thing - and the 'East' article is a great example of how it can all go horribly wrong unless editors go through the lengthy process of a) complaining about it, b) digging up hundreds of edits, c) opening a case, and d) hoping that proportionality will prevail. Little grape (talk) 23:10, 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)


 * Let me be very clear. You two are having an editorial disagreement over the article content. When you disagree with something it is not automatically vandalism, and you should not mark it as such. The only thing you should be marking as vandalism is "page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language" or similar material(from WP:3RR). At this point I am inclined to ban you both from any articles related to Sinden. I'll have to think on that a bit. Kevin (talk) 22:56, 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)


 * Relative Values is and always has been a Sunday Times feature; it's been run every week in the Sunday Times Magazine for at least twenty five years that I can recall - see []. Debrett's stopped using 'Distinguished' in 1991. Here's evidence from the ISBN list: []. And, yes, as I clearly know where Sinden lives and Clegg says he doesn't know - perhaps he can stop adding the false claim that Sinden lives on Bishop's Avenue? Perhaps a sensible solution is indeed to ban both of us from any Sinden-related articles, and allow other editors to fill the breach. I'm happy with such a solution. Little grape (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And finally, some shock news that should surprise no-one. After some minor digging, one discovers Clegg admits that HE is Marc Sinden in this edit [], which he has later erased from his talkpage. QED. Having exposed him, may I therefore request you consider blocking him indefinitely from editing his own article and any Sinden-related ones? Thanks Little grape (talk) 23:53, 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)


 * Oh this just gets funnier and funnier, if it weren't for the fact that the encyclopaedia continues to be corrupted by ever-greater numbers of editors who see it as just one giant vanity page. Little grape (talk) 06:35, 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)


 * Copied section to Sinden talk page as this may run and run - it seems like a more appropriate venue.... Little grape (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, PLEASE don't let this matter slip away... Captainclegg (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Australia
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)
 * Yeah, I figured that out. I have no idea how a website's own claims of being sued are a reliable source, or how something unreported in the press so far as I know is even notable, but whatever. Kevin (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AbbyWinters.com
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)
 * Well, I thought that the edit summaries I used were detailed enough to explain my reasons for the removal. I've replied to your note that the article talk page. Kevin (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Liquid
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)


 * That could work, but first both of them need to learn to work together, and we're still waiting for a sign that this is possible. I was thinking of trying to get them to collaborate on the lead of Liquid, or perhaps the outline Marie mentioned. Kevin (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds like a plan. Marie just gave a list of secondary sources (hurray...) so I'll just sit back and watch for a while. Please notify me when you think I can be of use. Woodwalker (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you know something of the subject, then you can help right now. I think some examples of normal courteous editorial discussion could help both parties. Step in anytime. Kevin (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm of little use when liquids are discussed in such detail. I've been educated in thermodynamics and dynamics/mechanics of crystalline solids, but know very little about liquids. I understand more or less what they are discussing and am familiar with the terminology, but I cannot judge the relative importance of the content they add or remove well enough to propose a clear outline myself. They will have to do it together or another expert has to turn up. Woodwalker (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Willy Schäfer (actor)
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)
 * Sorry, link to AfD here.
 * Seems like a clear enough consensus to me. One editor nominated, citing lack of sources, another editor noted that sources could not be found, and no-one argued to keep. Kevin (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin, I sent this to DrV. I'm fairly sure this is not a valid close per WP:RELIST, but I've been wrong before.... Hobit (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What a pointless waste of time. Had you asked for it to be restored so you could fix it up I would have done, the same as I would for a PROD. Or was there another point to this? Kevin (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, I asked about the AfD and you said there was consensus at AfD. I did ask you to either reopen or change the close and you refused.  I guess we talked past each other, but I felt my request was pretty clear. Hobit (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way it's out of both our hands now. Kevin (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh
I love your deletion summary for 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)
 * I'm sure they will. We can use it to define irony in months to come. Kevin (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Solonoski
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.
 * I would argue that "is going to compete" is a world away from "has competed", which is the standard that WP:ATHLETE calls for. Kevin (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin, hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but there is a current discussion here where consensus seems to be forming that "current squad members" who have not yet competed can be considered notable until such a time that they either fulfill the requirements or they are removed from the squad. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Marie Poise and User:Logger9 at ANI
If you could comment at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, it would be much appreciated. Cheers, NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm inclined to block the pair of them. Kevin (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have commented there also. Your opinion is needed.    DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that opinion, it is very useful. Kevin (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin, DGG, NW, I am with you to mediate this case. Would it be possible to have your opinion on whether or not COI and related protectionism maybe a factor (I left a subsection at the bottom of ANI thread). This might help to develop a solution. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gracie and Zarkov
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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem, but you might want to let those who argued to delete know. Kevin (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I dropped them a note, thanks ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris C. Kemp
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)
 * The criteria for inclusion of biographies are listed at WP:BIO, and are essentially that the person has been the subject of reliably published coverage that is independent from the subject. Fir this individual I would expect to see newspaper or magazine articles or something similar. Kevin (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. Shouldn't be a problem, i've already gathered a few, like SFChronicle, WashingtonPost, BBC and more recently NextGov, Spacenews, FederalNewsRadio and others. I'm happy to edit the article to base it on these secondary resources. Is there a way I can get the original page back to start editing? Thanks again Navarenko (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the coverage here are more than trivial mentions that do not meet the criteria at WP:BIO. We need something that has more than his name and job title, such as a paragraph of background on Kemp. I'll have a look on NewsBank and see if there is anything there. Kevin (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * NewsBank only has the SF Chronicle article you linked, and EBSCOhost brought up one article with a similar trivial mention of his name only. Kevin (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Its a bit of catch22 cause the previous wiki article was used for that very purpose, i.e. providing an overview of the man's career and current position. it was used by many as a reference for a brief bio (e.g. where he sat on a panel etc). There is a profile coming out in a week or so on spacenews, hopefully that will have the looked-for bio/background info. meanwhile, could I get access to the deleted article to draft the updated version so it'll be ready when the profile comes out? Navarenko (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The pre-deletion version is now at User:Navarenko/Chris C. Kemp. Kevin (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up to say I've updated the article on Chris C Kemp with several references, most importantly with the profile article that was featured in Space News earlier this week Chris C. Kemp profile. This profile touches on most of the points mentioned in the wikipedia article. I plan to bring the article back online tomorrow so wanted to run it by you. Thx Navarenko (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Space News profile looks like it would satisft those who argued to delete at the AfD. Send me a note when you have moved it back and I'll restore the talk page. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just restored the page at Chris C. Kemp including several redirects and deleted my working version of it. I'll keep a watch on the page to see any community activity. Thanks for your help in all this. Navarenko (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time you need to move the page back into article space, rather than cutting and pasting the content. I've merged the histories of both versions now, so you need to check that your preferred version is current. Kevin (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Consideration
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)
 * I have responded to your latest on my talk page. I think you may like to respond before I consider taking this further. Kevin McCready (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have apparently refused to respond but as a matter of courtesy to you I am letting you know I have reported your behaviour at the admin incidents page.Kevin McCready (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or alternately, I was busy and had not yet had a chance. Kevin (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Christy Twins
Hello Kevin, At the AfD for the Christy Twins, 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)
 * I have amended the closing statement to explain how I assessed this, essentially I merged duplicate arguments into one for each editor. That done, the consensus is clear and deletion is the only possible outcome. Kevin (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I'm still unclear how consenous on the issue was made clear by one additional !vote on both sides, but I'll drop it for now.  Hobit (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Megarex and Megarex (album)
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)
 * Fixed. Kevin (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok! Thank you!Victor Silveira (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP Arthur Kemp
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)

Help
Many thanks for your help with my request on ANI. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Articles for deletion/Brian Fury
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)
 * While WP:ATHLETE is more specific than WP:GNG, it is also less stringent in it's inclusion criteria, so generally I find that if an athlete fails the former then they also fail the latter. That said, GNG was not addressed in the debate, only ATHLETE. In my opinion, those arguments based on ATHLETE were easily strong enough to show a consensus for deletion. Are yuo sure we want to keep an article where the strongest keep argument is "barely notable"? Kevin (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. No, I am not sure it should be kept (hence my "weak keep") and don't plan to contest the close.  For future reference, you should be aware that amateur athletes are quite often notable, at least in the United States.  The US puts a lot more emphasis on college sports than most any other country in the world.  (Not saying this applied here, just offering it as a general note.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to Hell
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)
 * What, you aren't able to make an argument without the words "detestable gnat on humanity"? Kevin (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would that we could all use lifeless, gray, colorless, and boring language in order to make your pathetic life have meaning. Do you protest people who don't speak to you in a monotones as well? scooteristi (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection of Fidel Castro
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, 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)
 * OK, we'll see how it goes. Kevin (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alexander Lee
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).


 * I am of the opinion that leaving debates on BLPs open for an excessive amount of time is generally to be avoided, in fairness to the subject. So in some cases I will close as soon as a clear consensus has formed, and in other cases, I basically treat it as an uncontested WP:PROD. This was a bit of both. As to whether closing after a relist is premature, there is no policy or guideline specifying any particular time to wait after a relist. Kevin (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

For God's sake do something about this crazy person
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)
 * Hmm, and who were you before this account? Kevin (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin, for your info, I am staying WAY outta this one! Ringside and lovin' it! Captainclegg (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin, I am really trying to bite my tongue here, but if you read the latest posting from Little grape on the Talk:Marc Sinden page, he is now being highly insulting and derogatory, saying that Sinden is "less notable than my goldfish", lying in saying that I had "claimed to be a 'good friend'" of Sinden's (which I would not claim to be) and that I had "expunged completely" Jeremy Sinden's name from the Marc Sinden article, which is absolutely untrue, as there is a link in the article anyway. Little grape is going against everything that you had previously instructed the two of us about and now making life hell for another editor. Please intercede. It is unfair and I am trying to stick to what you, rightly, had previously said. Enough, surely, is enough. Captainclegg (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take notice, Kevin: You told Little grape that his "often used sarcastic or inflammatory edit summaries are totally unacceptable". He has just used this edit summery in the Talk:Marc Sinden page for an editor called Berettagun: "Rotate shotgun 180 degrees. Engage toe. "PULL!"". What is the point in warning him about his behaviour if he just continues and gets nastier and more personal? Please stop this, as you said that you would. Captainclegg (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question (above), I've not been a Wiki editor before but I noticed the extraordinary editing on the Marc Sinden article by Little Grape, went across to his page, saw the equally extraordinary edits he has done elsewhere - on the Jonathan King article (constant removal of verified facts such as the recording of one of his songs by Nina Simone why?) and others, all seeming to be inspired by malice and cunning use of Wiki language - and became incensed. I have no axe to grind and no great interest in Sinden (I knew his brother) but I felt this Editor seems to reflect the worst aspects of this incredibly useful and valuable site. I suggest Editors like Captainclegg, SlimVirgin, Berettagun, Pharaoh of the Wizards, OhNoitsJamie, Seb az86556 and yourself get together and examine who Little Grape is and why he does what he does. Parnathus (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - I can't find the 'unblock|your reason here' bit for an appeal, but the issue is somewhat moot as 48hrs have passed. I would accept in any case that my sense of humour overcame me with regard to the suggestion that BarretaGun turned his shotgun around 180 degrees. However, in view of recent events with regard to Clegg/Baretta/Parnathus‎/IPedits/Daunt/Whatever perhaps you'd reconsider the Sinden article ban after reviewing my edits on that and other Sinden-related articles. Without exception, those edits sought to improve the article by removing puffery and unsupported false claims. Plus of course there's now a lot of clean-up work to do here: []
 * Good catch on checkuser - I'd considered such a request but thought there was *far* more flushing out to do. I thought Clegg was too smart to get caught twice, so would have used a better method to mask his IP. I was surprised that Daunt was the same as Parnathus‎; I thought Daunt was 'a source very close to Jonathan King', and that Parnathus was a 'throwaway account' used by Clegg while he was at an internet cafe or something, as that entity came in strong right from the start with agressive tactics and personal abuse and was bound to get blocked at some point. Little grape (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename?
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)
 * Someone in RL mentioned my account in a way that threatened my future employment, so I felt I had no choice. I'd sort of forgotten that SUL means that I would have needed a rename at 20 other wikis to have any effect. Kevin (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Early closures
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 if and when you have a chance. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 22:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of actresses in the MILF porn genre AfD
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)
 * There is a significant difference in that in this case the majority was for deletion, and the opposite was true for the male list. As for other possible solutions, those who argued to delete did not think so, and my close reflects that. Kevin (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

ACE
Can you please confirm you voted in ACE as user:kevin?--Tznkai (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. Kevin (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Twitter article
Did you mean edit=autoconfirmed, move=sysop? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone else picked that up and corrected my error a while ago. Kevin (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions petition
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)
 * I see my sig has been removed altogether now. Must have been diluting the message. Kevin (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested:
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 &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?
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. Ryoung 122 22:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you really this clueless? Kevin (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fake steve
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)
 * I must be missing something here. How is this redirect useful? Kevin (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andria "Dreamz" Herd
Regarding your closure of 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)
 * Then perhaps you should have made that argument at the debate. When an individual is notable for only one thing a redirect from the name is usually appropriate. If you have an issue with the naming of the redirect, then create an alternate one. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good close
As I said, "Maybe I should grow a pair." I shall be interested to see what the fall-out is. :) Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fallout will be at DRV, for sure. I just wonder which one will list it. Kevin (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will list it. In fact, I was surprised to see it deleted so soon after relisting (I note your conversation here). I would also like to make it clear that I am not Alex Jamieson, despite any similarity you might think you see between our writing styles. By all means, use checkuser to verify this. It is inaccurate to say that I wrote the bio, although I did promote it to GA status, and subsequently personally delisted it as a result of the GAR consensus. Incidentally, I'm surprised to see my writing described as a 'screed' - haven't I got the right to defend the article in the way I see fit. I am a literate person with a background in philosophy and I don't write anything that I think is not relevant. I put a great deal of effort into putting together a cogent case for retention of that article. I would also like to state here that I believe there is evidence of collusion between editors in the AfD process. I will return to the matter within the next 12 hours. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I have made no claims whatsoever as to who you are or are not similar to, and have no intention of raising a checkuser request. Neither did I say that you had written the bio. As for my use of the word "screed", it is not intended in a derogatory fashion, but as a word to describe a lengthy discourse. Kevin (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies, Kevin, if it seemed that I was attributing those things to you. I was using this thread as a convenient place to address both you and Fences, in the context of your conversation here. I believe screed is generally used pejoratively (see here), so I think my reaction was understandable. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Brevity is the soul of wit, so criticising overly long contributions at AfD is fair game. You can take it to deletion review if you like, but as the only arguments for keep were weak you will almost certainly be wasting your time; liking Shepherd's work is not the same as demonstrating notability (and most of the content wasn't even verifiable). Biographies can't be scraped together using passing references and the subject's own self-published works. After further thought I'd have closed the AfD exactly as Kevin did. As for a relation to Alex jamieson, was it pure coincidence that you appeared to do the GAR just after he wrote the article? Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding brevity, point taken.


 * I won't pursue deletion review if success is unlikely. I have emailed DGG to ask his opinion - I had never heard of him before his submission to the AfD process, but I have since read his user page and I respect the wealth of experience he brings here. I think it is a moot point about biography and self-publication: I agree that self-published sources should not be used for factual information about a person's life, but the guidelines allow them to be used for authorial opinion, as I attempted to show in my 'screed' (!), and the article is largely about the subject's views. I'll wait to see what DGG says, assuming he replies.


 * Regarding Alex, no it wasn't coincidence - he did bring the article to my attention, after he saw my comments about Shepherd on Amazon. He was aware that I had an interest in the subject, and had defended him before, when I edited the Holotropic Breathwork article under my original account (I have retained that account, and my reasons were accepted by ArbCom, who registered the alternate accounts). Incidentally, between my two accounts, I don't think I can be accused of SPA. To be sure, my limited time means that I only make major edits on subjects that really interest me, but there is some variety there and I do make a point of tidying things or improving style where necessary in any article I'm reading (a habit from working professionally as an editor in the past!)


 * Speaking of coincidence, I do genuinely suspect that the motivation for the AfD nomination, as well as several of the submissions, were sectarian, and probably connected with wider issues. For instance, was it pure coincidence that JN466 gave his support to Polargeo's Request for Adminship, just 90 mins after the latter had voted delete in the Shepherd AfD? It is relevant that JN466 has only recently declared his interest in Osho, another highly controversial figure whom Shepherd has stridently criticised. Surely in any real-world context (legal, political or commercial) this would be the subject of an investigation, and the interested parties would be suspended pending the outcome.


 * Simon Kidd (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanation of the editing patterns. Those concerns about interests outside Wikipedia affecting edits here were precisely why I raised the topic at the admin noticeboard. It might be seen as beating a dead horse, but you could reopen that section to voice your concerns over COI in the deletion debate, but be wary of shooting yourself in the foot. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:59, 23 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)


 * Simon Kidd asked me to comment here. As for the article:  I will give you my opinion that there is no possible chance for an acceptable article here, until substantially more is published about the man and his work than there is at present. As I said at the AfD, the best likelihood of there being any seems to be in connection with the disputes concerning  Sathya Sai Baba.  For the details, see the AfD. Anyone who takes it to deletion review will be wasting his time. The other outside people involved in this  are saying just the same, and so would any others. To the extent the subject is aware of this and wishes an article, the only advice I can give him is to publish in conventional publications and hope for conventional reviews in reliable sources. If that should ever be the case, I will write an appropriate article myself if the sources are sufficient to satisfy me that the article will be acceptable, but there is no point asking me until they are available.


 * As for more important matters: those who are closely concerned with him, for or against, should stop using Wikipedia to fight with each other. The usual eventual result of this sort of combat will not be of benefit to anyone.    DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks DGG. Hopefully we can avoid a pointless DRV. I'm away for a while now, so I'll miss the fun in any case. Kevin (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll second the thanks. Whatever the motives of other editors in the AfD process, I have found you to be even-handed and objective. If the current Wikipedia tendency is towards exclusion (and btw I saw M Alan Kazlev's Brickbat: Deletionism and the end of the Wikipedia dream for the first time today; see also his Bouquet: Blocking malcontents a little further down), then that's fair enough, as long as the 'policy' is applied consistently. It is up to those in positions of authority to decide on what direction Wikipedia should take, for better or worse. I agree that it is not the place to carry on a fight, and it was never my intention to do so. Heaven knows there's enough of that going on here already! On your advice I'm withdrawing my intention to request a review. If Kevin Shepherd is reading this, he may be grateful for your offer to write the article yourself one day. Perhaps he should send you a copy of one of his books, something a librarian would always appreciate ;-) All the best. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Userfied SUPER (software)
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)