User talk:Kevin

In my opinion, the idea that IP edits are so valuable that we should ignore the harm to living subjects is morally bankrupt.

To all those who may be interested, this former administrator will possibly rejoin the admin corps the day that any of these things happens:

• Flagged revisions is turned on, at least for BLP's
• semi-protection of BLP's is instituted
• a working system of governance that gives admins the tools and backing to do a proper job

Trying to administer a project with both arms tied behind ones back is a pointless exercise.

---

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurij Moskon... I was a little luckier than you in my search. The article will need Slovenian input. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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)