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 "Persistent and significant violations of policy on biographical articles by multiple IPs, please consult with me before unprotecting.

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. I think Wikifan also wants to head for mediation, but in a more formal sense. Kevin (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: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)[reply]

I agree with Root. Well done. لenna vecia 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1]. Could this pose a problem for the mediation? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, any input is appreciated. Kevin (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It certainly will not make mediation easier. I'll comment there shortly. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]