User talk:Kevin

Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.

It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Note - if I have protected a page with the summary "Per liberal use of semiprotection policy, please consult with me before unprotecting" see User:Lar/Liberal_Semi for my criteria and reasoning.

Thank you for helping with the BLPs

It's appreciated. :) Enigma^msg 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's why I came back. I'm doing others not on Lar's list - see my log. It may be worth transferring them over. Kevin (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's what's worth coming back for. The rest of it? Not so much. Enigma^msg 07:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		That was way too fast! Enigma^msg 07:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Dukes

The first ever protection on Elijah Dukes is for an entire year?! Seems a bit extreme. Actually that seems way extreme! Wknight94 ^talk 12:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a years protection a suitable response to a years vandalism. Further discussion at User talk:Lar/Liberal Semi. Kevin (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems appropriate to me. Since the page isn't being watched by enough people to prevent defamation from sticking, a year is appropriate. I'd say indefinite would also be appropriate. There's really no point to protecting for one week in such cases. Enigma^msg 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of "forever" for BLP articles, but 1 year is a more definite statement of my intention re the length than "indefinite" would be. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Bowen

Hi. Please could you unprotect Jeremy Bowen so that the mutually acceptable text on the talk page can be introduced into the article. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 19:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good to see you have reached a compromise. Kevin (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Ochocinco

You semi'd this article on the basis of persistant and significant BLP issues. However I don't see any edit within this month that seems to fit this criteria. Could you provide the exact diffs that encouraged you to protect this page? Icestorm815 • Talk 05:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable, as I see they were all prior to the previous protection. I mistook the previous protection for move protection only. I've unprotected, thanks for the notice. Kevin (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I requested it not due to defamation but due to persistent name changes. He changed his name last year and ever since, IPs have been edit-warring over whether his name is Johnson, Ocho Cinco, OchoCinco, Ochocinco, etc. Some IPs keep going back and changing all the Johnsons in the article. *shrug* Enigma^msg 05:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not your fault - it's up to me to check properly. Kevin (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Carver

Was this a mistake? Enigma^msg 05:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must have had one of your diffs open when I started fixing things. Sorry. Kevin (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem. I'll look at the whole thing when I get a chance. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just seen your comment on my page. Must have been posting at the same time! Quantpole (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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#A7 would not have applied in any case, as it does not apply to software. Kevin (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may be right regarding software, but on the general point surely Wikipedia:DELETE#Process_interaction 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think your interpretation is correct. I learn something every day. Kevin (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. It's a situation I hadn't come across before! Quantpole (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]