User talk:Kevin: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Kevin/Archive 6. |
→José Reyes (shortstop): new section |
||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
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 <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Kevin - Theo789 is back, ignoring consensus and editing as he pleases. He's quoted you in support of his position on neutrality on the talk page - I don't know if you agree with him or not, but I figure it's best if you speak for yourself and decide where you want your comments posted, so I figured I'd mention it here. Meanwhile, any suggestions about how to get him to understand how things work around here? He doesn't seem to have learned from his block, not surprisingly. Thanks <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[José Reyes (shortstop)]] == |
|||
Protection was, as Wknight [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar%2FLiberal_Semi&diff=285660390&oldid=285640931 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 [[WP:RFPP|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, [[Special:Contributions/68.76.147.212|68.76.147.212]] ([[User talk:68.76.147.212|talk]]) 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:10, 12 May 2009
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.
It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
- 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. 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)
- 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. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 3 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)
You say "significant and persistent" BLP violations. There has been two vandalism edits (today, May 5) in a year+. Where is this persistent vandalism? Grsz11 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- These edits [1], [2] and [3] 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 [4] or [5]. On the same note, how is this blatant vandalism? Grsz11 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#User:Lar/Liberal Semi. I don't fault you, I just think it's something that needs comments so no wheel-warring results. Grsz11 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)
- With a comment at RFPP, I brought the issue up at WP:ANI#User:Lar/Liberal Semi. I don't fault you, I just think it's something that needs comments so no wheel-warring results. Grsz11 16:49, 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)
- 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 [4] or [5]. On the same note, how is this blatant vandalism? Grsz11 03:36, 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 [6] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)