I had noticed the copyright message that appeared after i posted the first part of the article. I was in the process of writing the rest of the article, as well as removing the copy'ed sections.
Could the page be un-deleted, so i can finish the page and not have to type out the small amount i had all ready done or have the page moved to another page in my subspace so i can work on it.
Thankyou, (ps im watching this page)
--DarkAxi0m (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lookin at the time now, i dont think ill be able to do it as soon as whats needed, ive got to goto the school to get more info and take a photo or two anyway. Ill finish it after ive done that. If its not too much trouble could i get a copy of what was done. Thank you for your time. --DarkAxi0m (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kev. I got a whopping 89 Google hits for this group and if this direct quote from down the page isn't nonsense, I don't know what is:
"Between the Belltones, there are 23 children and 14 grand children - all of which are either unemployed or in reform school. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it illegal for a Belltone to reproduce in the state of California. Thirteen other states have similar legislature pending. This is in direct contrast to Puerto Rico's Lonny Fame and the Belltones Day, held whenever it snows.
Thurston, Kooch and DelGredo rejoined the group for the 2006 Lonny Fame and the Belltones Reunion, held in Lawrence Kansas [1]. Kooch was temporarily released from prison for the event and performed flawlessly in cuffs and leg irons." --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to differentiate between nonsense and bullshit. I think this falls into the second category. I found some minor evidence that the group did exist, even if they are not notable. The bits you quoted above seem to be vandalism added later. If your G3 tag doesn't do it, then it will surely sink at AfD. Kevin (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yup, where male bovines congregate, stuff like this can be found. I'd just hate like heck to see these guys get their yuks if this ever went as far as AfD. You're one of the good ones, Kev. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, my friend. I must say I've actually enjoyed this. I was in the right place at the right time on RC patrol and caught me a sneaky little sonofagun. Signing off for the night and I hope we meet again tomorrow. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
XR Backup .. deleted again, blatent advertising?
When i wrote the page, i followed the guide lines and the page was not a blatent advertising and was not even an ad. The page described XR Backup in a neutral point of view as stated in the guidelines.
Why was the page removed and how is it different from this one:
Please provide a prompt response regarding the actual content of the page. The page describes the software program and describes how it works and provides information about usage and limitations. Please explain why it is not suitable for wikipedia with comparison to the link above.
Also please avoide using the attitude with threats to blocking. (I already got that on my talk page for no reason)
Please, try to be a bit civilized. I did not have any communication with any admin/editor on wikipedia who doesn't have an obviouse attitude. I thought wikipedia was a solid professional firm and with that i expect professional communication.
First, perhaps you could show me where I have had an "attitude", or been uncivil towards you, given that this is our first communication. I deleted the article because it seemed mainly designed to show the features of a product. You would need to show where this product has been written about in reliableindependent publications, i.e. a magazine etc. As to Ventis BackupSuite 2008, I have doubts as to whether that product should have an article either. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for reasons why the existence of one article is not a good argument for the existence of another. Kevin (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the response on my (talk) page. now I have also another quesion, is there away to get the content of the page back? I sure can use what I wrote and post it on some review site, I didn't keep a copy, and it was an effort that I could use somewhere else.. thanks. Dee.0x29a (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most famous Hindi bands in Kolkata India, have brought new genres into Hindi music and have cut an original album as well. I did not put up the article in a proper way so you could not understand the significance. I am giving reference of one of the top newspapers in India "The Telegraph" (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1061026/asp/calcutta/story_6877836.asp. Can I put this back up?
I did see the article in The Telegraph, but I still felt that the band did not meet the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. I'll undelete for now, and move your userspace. That way you can fix it at your leisure. Kevin (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kevin. Will you please let me know specifically what needs to be done to make is qualify. For example photograph of their lead singer performing in Cardiff (I will give you the link to that website to prove authenticity) or photographs of the band winning the rock contest in Mumbai or anything of that sort.
Because in India (just in case you are not aware) there's not much coverage for independent Indian band music. The entire media is focussed on the Mumbai film industry music. A band survives on stage shows, word of mouth and album sales. To some extend radio (FM) as well. So giving extensive references of printed form is very very difficult.
Also let me point out another famous Indian band named "Krosswindz" who have an article on wiki but they have not given a single reference. So I was confused about why Kollage's page does not meet the guidelines.It is very important for them as they are about to come out with their second album. So please help.
Incorrigible man (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of WP:MUSIC is that the primary criteria for inclusion is multiple non-trivial published works in reliableindependent sources. So the Telegraph article only fails by virtue of not being multiple. Other criteria such as charted hits or awards don't seem to apply for Kollage. Regarding Krosswindz, firstly I don't hold much with the but it's the same as this article argument, and they have received extensive news coverage, easily fulfilling the multiple non-trivial published works criteria. Does this help? Kevin (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. I noticed you issued a short block to this user after a small spate of vandalism. This is one of a number of IPs that are strangely attracted to messing with articles on Waylon Jennings, Shooter Jennings, Jessi Colter, and several others relating to country/western music and The Dukes of Hazzard. I also started with short blocks, but found that the vandal returns immediately after it expires and starts it up again. When someone attacks these articles, I've started blocking for fairly long periods, while watchlisting the talk pages so I'll notice if an actual valid user is requesting an unblock. I'm dropping this message here because I want active vandalism patrollers to be aware that these aren't really isolated attacks. They've been going on for months. Joyous! | Talk23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I've added these to my watch list, and yes, blocking for longer periods seems like a good idea. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've never downloaded an image on to wikipedia. Did you see my note on the image you deleted? I have an email with permission. Do you know where I send it to? --Npnunda (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I just sent a copy of the email I got and I attached the photo to permissions-en@wikipedia.org. I can only assume that was why it was deleted. --Npnunda (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did upload upload an image - it's shown in your log. I deleted the image because, email not withstanding, permission was only given for use on Wikipedia, and images here must have a free license without usage restrictions. See WP:CSD#I3 for more info. Kevin (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant this is the first image I've downloaded. As in I've never downloaded an image before and don't know the process. --Npnunda (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh OK. What you need to do is get permission to release the image under a free licence, such as one of the Creative Commons licenses, with no usage restrictions such as non-commercial use, or Wikipedia only use. Unfortunately the process and licensing are very difficult to get your head around. This license is the one recommended. Kevin (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read up on the polices and you did the right thing deleting it. If I want to use the image, I need to send the guy another email. I'll wait a few days and then decide what to do. Thanks. --Npnunda (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! On 25 June, you deleted an article by another editor about the theologian and writer Marilyn Sewell, based on copyright infringement. I wanted to update you that I volunteered to rewrite the article from scratch (the article falls into the Unitarian Universalist WikiProject, of which I am a member). The new article is now online and it cites four different sources. The initial source that raised the G12 concern (the subject's web site) was not included as a source for the text of the article; it is strictly listed as an external link. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, about a week ago you assisted me with a user shadowing and undoing all of my edits, sadly after their ban ended they have started again. Could you please assist me once more?Boston2austin (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you just deleted the Lucas Lobos image. All the rest of Juare10's "self made" images are obvious copyvios. I don't have the image deletion experience or the time to deal with it. I have to be at work in 6 hours and need some sleep. Perhaps you could delete the pics and deal with the user. Cheers EP23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re these edits, first of all thanks for following up on my edit...and second, do you think my action was correct? I'm new with the mop and I want to get it right. Thanks! Frank | talk 02:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Frank, I had protected before I saw your comment. In this case, the IP hadn't been warned adequately to be blocked, so your comment was spot on. I think I'm only slightly less new at this than you. See you around Kevin (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, in reference to the article that you have deleted earlier, Technopreneur Pre-Seed Fund
Programme<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technopreneur_Pre-Seed_Fund_Programme>
- I am giving these links/references to as ‘reliable sources; to substantiate the entry. Do let me know if further info is needed. Thanks.
Could you please explain how it was blatant advertising? Thank you if you can. YamakiriTC§07-10-2008 • 01:06:42
In essence, it looked to me like the only purpose of the article was to promote a brand of mouthwash. There were no independent sources, and the article contained no content other than a brief description of the product, and that is comes in various flavours. If there are any independent sources covering this product more than trivially, I will be happy to restore it. Kevin (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for restoration? Or do I need more? YamakiriTC§07-10-2008 • 13:48:39
Much more I think. The first is an advert, and the second 2 are sites where anyone can contribute, thus making them no a reliable source. What you are looking for are articles about the product in mainstream newspapers or magazines. Kevin (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question
You deleted my Green Harbor picture, which is ok because I'm going to take one myself today, but you don't have to notify me or anything? Just wondering. Beam12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I am deleting an image I don't notify usually because the image was already in CAT:CSD. Your image was tagged automatically for speedy deletion when you uploaded it without selecting a license. In this case, the image was clearly replaceable, so there was no justification that could be applied for fair use. That being the case, I saw no benefit in leaving a notification, as the end result would be the same. Kevin (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am upset that you have deleted the page I created on Anandi Ma. I would have preferred that you would at least discuss the matter with me rather than acting at once. Surely you should have asked me to provide proof of notability? Some of the main points regarding her notability are that she runs and maintains an ashram in the state of Gujarat in India, she has disciples in several countries (including the United States, India, the Czech Republic, Italy and Indonesia. Meditation teachers affiliated with the Dhyanyoga Centers organization (based in Antioch, California in the United States) can be found in each of those countries. The Dhyanyoga Centers nonprofit organization is of note. Their ashram in Nikora, Gujarat also provides services to the poor including medical camps (such as eye surgery) and free food, among other things. I think that is proof of notability. User: Rabble Rouser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.90.66 (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you are upset about this article. The article was left for 11 hours after you were notified of the notability concerns, which was enough time to either address the concerns, or add {{hangon}} to the page. For guidelines on the notability of people, see WP:BIO. The relevant part of that is: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.Kevin (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first cannot be deleted as it has a pre-merge history that needs to be retained. The rest seem like reasonable redirects. Street Fighter (franchise) was deleted as [WP:CSD#G6]] to revert a page move, but that criteria does not fit these. Kevin (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is for future reference. It's not that I despise them or anything, it would be nice to know when exactly to create a redirect and when to have one deleted. In other words, should I recreate Street Fighter (franchise) and make a bunch of other similar redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I would create a redirect from a commonly used alternate name, or a common miss-spelling or alternate capitalisation, for example Bill gates redirects to Bill Gates. Redirects allow those using the search box to find things more easily. In this case I would not recreate this redirect, because it does not seem like a common miss-spelling etc. I did not delete the others because they have been there for a while, and are doing no harm. Kevin (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with those pages I found on RC patrol this morning. There really are not enough people doing the important but perhaps a little boring work of deleting pages that need speedying. Dolive21 (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to your comment at User talk:Celtus. Celtus is correct; a clan badge is a plant, not a fixed image or symbol. The best way to illustrate a "badge" would be to illustrate the plant. The best way to illustrate a plant would be a photo or drawing of the plant in question. The best photo or drawing to use would be one that does not infringe copyright. Use of the Image:Clan Ramsay (Plant Badge).png may violate the artists copyright. The statement "There is no copyright on any ancient Scottish clan symbols" at Image:Clan Ramsay (Plant Badge).png is not a fact, and is misleading. Blue Harebell, the referred badge, is nothing more than the plant in question, not a specific image or drawing. As such it is replaceable with any picture of a Blue Harebell. I think the matter is of concern. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time
Hello I was wondering if there was any way to get the list on wikipedia. This list is critical to boxings history. Maybe there is some way I could contact the Ring magazine which made the list and they could give permission for its use please help in this problem thank you. Reallmmablogger (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My images
You recently deleted a whole batch of my golf images. They were used under fair use as other yearly golf tournaments have (i.e. Image:2008OpenLogo.gif). They were also brought to a third party in hopes of being labeled the same way as the example I gave. If you can re-add those until that discussion is over that would be great. Wikipedia:Third_opinion, see active disagreements. Thanks. --BurpTheBaby(Talk)19:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As had been explained to you some time ago, they need a fair use rationale, as well as the license template. I would have just added the rationale myself had I though that the images were actually fair use. I did not see how they passed WP:NFCC #8 which states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". In my opinion, they add nothing but decoration to those articles. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent for those logos to exist. Check out the 2008 U.S. Open Golf Championship page. It isn't for one person to decide if they should exist or not. Clearly precedent has been made here. And yes, the logo decorates the page, but in sports logos are important. People associate different teams, events, etc sometimes based on logos and pictures. Why does each team have a nickname? It really doesn't matter does it? But it helps with the association. I know it helps my memory of different events. --BurpTheBaby(Talk)06:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your example has a fair use rationale, which the images I deleted did not, despite the notice on your page. And more than one person was involved in the deletion - myself and the editor who tagged them as missing a fair use rationale (and notified you). Kevin (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are missing the point. Those images are all the same. They are golf tournament logos. We are not dealing with apples and oranges here. Those fair use rationales take time, but I assure you those images will get them. I was out of town this last week and unfortunately couldn't get to them. The user that tagged them was unfair and tagged them retroactively. When I initially uploaded them I didn't know they needed a rationale. Can you please do me this favor of reinstating them for at least 24 hours so I can save them. They are currently not on my hard drive. I don't see any harm in that. --BurpTheBaby(Talk)16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Image:1994OpenLogo.jpg or Image:1997OpenLogo.jpg. These are two images User:Stepshep missed while tagging my articles. They now have a proper fair-use rationale. I can get these done very quickly. I have demonstrated good faith edits here and have listed those deleted images at deletion review. --BurpTheBaby(Talk)17:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I see from those 2 examples that the logos are cropped photographs from this site. While it may be fair use for just the logo, the photographs are definitely not fair use. I had assumed that you were an avid golf fan and had taken the pics yourself. Kevin (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The owner of the flags is not selling the photographs, he is selling the flags. The photos have absolutely no value to him. I'll shoot him off an E-mail just to be 100%, but I'm positive it won't be a problem. --BurpTheBaby(Talk)22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you send the E-mail where it needs to go? Its been sent to the E-mail you use through Wikipedia. Please help me out there sense you seem to know what needs to be done. Thanks. --BurpTheBaby(Talk)16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to your email. Basically, Ryan needs to list the images to be released, and specify which license. Kevin (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ask him? You know exactly what needs to be done. I rather not E-mail him fifty times to get it exactly right. Use the E-mail I sent to in the original message. Thanks! --BurpTheBaby(Talk)17:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okie dokie, all the non-tour flags images have the appropriate fair use rationale tags affixed to the image pages. Thanks for restoring those. Let me know about the others. --BurpTheBaby(Talk)06:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, Baby, I found a bunch of legit images for 1991,1996-Present for the PGA and 1998-Present for the US. These are true logos not cropped from flags, so if you end up reinstating Baby's images, don't reinstate over the new ones I found. Thanks! I'll let you guys know if I find more. --FourteenClowns (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect Kev, its not intended to be advertising, just blatent! Perhaps you should delete the World Wrestling Entertainment entry too! Or alturntivly move the material from competitive nude female adult wrestling to a sub categry of profesinal wrestling. --Godianus the Finder (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin! I read in the policy that "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for Blatant advertising." Your a bit shifty..Why not turn your attention to more positive work --Godianus the Finder (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleated the glass dildos pics
Hey!
Saw u deleted my pics with glass dildos. The thing is that these are the company's, and the company has released them for general public. Before i put some that had an the company logo, and another admin told me that wasn't right, so i asked the company for non logo, and they gave these to me. If you don't believe me email them using the contact form here. Can u tell me how can i upload them without being deleted.
I have no intention of emailing them for permission. Their web site clearly asserts copyright over the images, which is why I deleted them. To be uploaded here, they (or you) need to follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to declare that the images can be used under a free license. Kevin (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image is not identical - this is the US cover whereas the image that was deleted was the EU cover. There are significant differences between the two, so they are certainly not "pixel-identical". For some reason someone removed the EU cover from the BLT2 article and replaced it with a US cover (which goes against the guidelines set out in the VG project); you then deleted the EU cover within a few hours which means that I'm not able to revert the article to how it previously was. Is it possible to undelete the image, or am I able to reupload the EU cover? Tim (Xevious) (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did short circuit the deletion a bit. The image I deleted was a bit oversized for fair use, and was not used, so I deleted it now, rather than wait 7 days to delete as orphaned fair use. I'll restore it for now. Kevin (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. Just noticed that the article CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) was deleted on 17 July. Did you delete this? Can I appeal to have this reinstated? The reason you've given is blatant advertising but I included citations and references and based the content on the RICS (Royal Institute for Chartered Surveryors) article which hasn't been deleted. It's no more advertorial than the RICS article. Also, I wasn't warned that the CIPD article would be removed so wasn't given a chance to amend it. If it can't be reinstated as it is, please can you let me know what I'd need to change to get it published again? I'll look forward to hearing from you Aligilbertson (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale on Image:40GB_PlayStation3_and_Sixaxis_Press.png
Hi. I was wandering if you could help me: The fair use rationale has been disputed on an image I uploaded. I'm not sure if I've filed it correctly because I'm sure this image is allowed under fair use as it was obtained from a press centre where the image is freely provided. Because I received the notice on my talk page from you I thought you would have more knowledge on this than me. Do I merely need to change the fair use rationale? Thanks. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this because the non-free content criteria requires that non-free images (ie an image you did not make yourself) must only be used if no free equivalent could be made. In this case, anyone could photograph their PS3 console and make a free image. I'm afraid I can't see any way that this image can be kept as fair use. You could also ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but you will likely get the same answer. Kevin (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
04:22, 22 July 2008 Kevin (Talk | contribs) deleted "Iklax" (G12: Blatant copyright infringement)
Hello Kevin,
I'd be gratefulm if you'd please re-instate the iKlax article. This is not a copyright infrigement, on the contrary, I am an employee of iKlax Media.
You can contact me directly using the contact information on http://www.iklaxmedia.com.
The information is accurate and from our websites.
I may have forgotten to sign when I posted.
Thanks in advance
Aekstra (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is copied from another website, then it is a copyright infringement no matter who wrote it, unless something on the website releases the content under a free license. Had I not deleted for that though, I would have deleted for not asserting notability. See the criteria at WP:CORP for notability criteria of companies. Kevin (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I believe there is sufficient information on iKlax in many media, worldwide. As the release of a new audio format is very difficult. On iklaxmedia.com, the information is free to be used to describe this new technology. I'm having trouble understanding what I should do to make the article wiki-acceptable (I have read through most guidelines). Thx again Kevin.
I'm not sure what more I can tel you that isn't at WP:CORP. Basically, you need to show that the company is notable by adding references to where the company has been written about (beyond trivial mentions) in reliableindependent sources, such as newspapers or magazines. Kevin (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MC
I'm not in an edit war. I am a responsible user reverting repeated vandalism, misinformation and page blanking by the IP 76.227.110.225. I have also placed a notice at admin requesting a block. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edits you are reverting are not blatant vandalism, and are not therefore exempt from WP:3RR. Also, putting block templates on a users page does not block them, it just makes things harder for others trying to sort the situation out. Kevin (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user was deliberately placing misinformation (inserting false band member names, etc.) on page after page of music articles, including Motley Crue. They then blanked my home page and the page of another user attempting to revert the vandalism. In this case, I don't believe WP:3RR applies and the IP should be (at least temporarily) blocked, as you've done. In any event, they stopped for the moment. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our little Grawpie just doesn't get it...
Hi, Kevin. Doggone it, I go to take a "wikibreak" and still I find myself playing "wikicop." Oh, well. :) FYI, I happened to notice that a lot of Our Grawpie's previous socks have been reblocked with the e-mail function disabled. THought it might be prudent to do the same with this last cleverly named sock. No need to answer; I've redirected my talk page to my userpage. Talk to ya soon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Have another cookie. It'll get the essence of Grawp off of your palate.
PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You betcha. Thanks for all you do. Cleaning up this playpen after Grawpie and his widdle playmates do their poopies is a lesson in real patience. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my page
If you would have bothered to check. You of seen I was not in an edit war. But merely reverted vandalism. In fact the vandal has now been permanently blockedSwampfire (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was revert blatant vandalism. If you actually read what he put in you would know it was blatant. In fact The same IP went to my user page and vandalized it as well. But I guess you think that wasn't blatant too. And A.Sniper had made his block permanent after he was temporarily blocked, but then went to my page and vandalized it. Swampfire (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can back up what Swampfire has stated: the IP user placed misinformation (which on the policy page is noted as vandalism when not done in good faith) into the article, and other articles as well. They then vandalized our own pages, placing a sockpuppet notice from his/her talk page on our pages. If you feel that only justifies 12 hours, that's your call... A Sniper (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah his call, But I don't see how a blatant vandal, only gets 12 hours. When if you check the user page he has already been blocked before for 31 hours. And his whole page is full of warnings for vandalizing. On Motley Crue alone first he vandalized, then reverted 6 times in about an hour. Which is why I stopped at 3.Swampfire (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dave, it was Image:L28BaronsHey.jpg, and was deleted because the license was for non-commercial use only. I've undeleted it so you can fix the license. When you select the non-commercial or Wikipedia only license it automatically tags the image for deletion. Kevin (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I saw you deleted an earlier version of an article on new iPhone game Aurora Feint as promotional. I took another shot at it, trying for a more neutral POV and adding lots of cites. Also I mentioned an interesting and brewing privacy issue around the game's community features. Let me know what you think of the revision.Stu (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article on the casualties of Islam is not an attack on ALL Muslims, the same way an article on the Holocaust is not an attack on all Germans. Unless wikipedia finds it too politically incorrect to have articles that are anything but unadulterated praise for Islam.
--Comradesandalio (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted because the article was sourced from an opinion piece, which I feel is not reliable enough for the content. It was nothing to do with being politically incorrect. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serge Trifkovic has written in a scholaly book of his that 100 million Hindus have been murdered by Moslem extremists. Would that be ok to include in an article?
Anyway, one of the reasons given for the deletion was that it was an attakc on ALL Moslems when it was only an "attack" on those moslems who did the actual killing, which SHOULD not be controversial.--Comradesandalio (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using the term Moslem extremists narrows your subject down considerably from political Islam, which is what I deleted. If this book is a reliable source them I'm sure there is some place for the content. Kevin (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HOKLAS
Hello, Kelvin,
I do not have talk page. You might email me at <redacted>
I have created a page of HOKLAS. Because I cannot find anything about HOKLAS, I tried to create a page. When the system tells me to be under speedy deletion, I tried to add more content but suddently when I save the page. Wiki tells me that you have deleted the page.
They were tagged by User:Betacommand, who should have informed you at the time. I don't know why you were not informed in this case as Betacommand seems to have informed you in other cases. Kevin (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the difficulty in establishing a balanced editorial standard, particularly for something as massive as Wikipedia. However the relevance of the content and the many inconsistencies I see make me wonder why you would cut the piece - once:radix.
As an example of a clear violation, check out Morfik. Though there are many more examples.
In our specialist area: The entry for Rich Internet Applications has slowly but surely moved to become a blatant promotion of Microsoft and Adobe. I see this in many places.
It is easy enough to get an 'independent' ghost contributor. Surely, the quality of the content and its relevance to the subject media must be considered or risk becoming a site that is trivialized or manipulated by special interest groups.
I agree completely with the need for independence and relevance. This is why I have chosen to not create an entry. The decision by one of our consultants in Europe to create an entry was completely his own idea and he made no attempt to disguise his association with this project. That was naîve of him but reflects his honesty.
If you Google once:radix you will see that it is an important development in the Rich Internet Application space. There are few people as qualified to write about it as Vadim.
As I wrote at the beginning, it is a difficult issue to find the right balance. But to omit something as significant as once:radix on the grounds of source while there are so many obviously flagrant abuses is problematic. I don't think you have the balance right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.226.21 (talk)
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but I deleted this article as a word for word copyright violation of [1]. If you rewrite in your own words, then so long as notability is asserted there is no problem. Kevin (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kevin=
Were you trying to get in touch with me? If so... you can get back to me.
Thanks again, Kevin. :) That MG sock you just blocked had created five other socks, none of which were blocked, but at least none had edited. They're listed just above the legit entry for "Captain Flame Guy" on the MascotGuy long term abuse page. Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
PS: He'd also created some new articles and redirects, all of which I'd tagged as speedy deletions. The one about that non-notable freeway bridge in San Diego is something like two years old, had been edited by several other of his socks and was still little more than a nanostub. I'll think of him the next time I'm crossing that bridge; it's smack dab in downtown...and it's just a crushingly ordinary freeway bridge. I'll give him credit for noting it was once part of US 395, though. The road geek in me insists. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I couldn't help noting the email there. I have no idea why she thinks Communist Chinese would want to delete that article. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kleon AfD
Sure the AfD is pointy. And it's a misplaced attack (whether justified or not) on User:Gwen Gale. However, deleting the AfD seems sure to add to Radioinfoguy's resentment (if only for all the time he wasted on writing it up). He says he wants the article deleted; it's not obvious at all to me that he doesn't want it deleted, and I take him at his word. If his reason for deletion is unconvincing (or nonexistent), this can be pointed out. -- 05:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am more interested in removing a personal attack on Gwen than avoiding Radioinfoguy's resentment. If he truly wants the article deleted, then he can put up a reasonable nomination. Kevin (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The personal attack is real, and misplaced at best. But I read the AfD as presenting (amid a lot of huffing and puffing and of course irrelevant material) an argument that might be completely invalid but that was worth some moments' thought: that another user had turned the article into a personal fief, and that it so egregiously violated at least one of WP's rules (WP:OWN) that it deserved deletion. If that was an argument, it certainly could have been presented a lot more persuasively. I hope Radioinfoguy cools down and either learns to live with the article more or less as it is now or puts forward a good AfD proposal. Actually I have some sympathy for him: the atmosphere surrounding this article has not been helped by repeated gnat-bites from an obsessed troll who hasn't been able to dick around with the article much (sprotection) but has been tiresome on its talk page (also now sprotected); this is a typical "contribution". -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either AfD the page, or allow valid sources. Gwen doesn't own the article. She needs to stop acting like it. My reasons for deletion were valid. Leave it to the high and mighty armchair intellectuals to cencor this information, about Gwen's abuse of power, with your BS reasons. Why not address the points presented? Too difficult? That would require a counter rationale and you don't have one. Put the AfD up the way it was originally written. Radioinfoguy (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to do that. If you actually want the article deleted then redo the AfD with a brief reason related to some policy or content guideline. Any discussion about another editors behavior is not appropriate in the nomination. Kevin (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not address the points? One reason is that I for one am tired and hungry and you've done nothing to make me want to delay my supper any longer. If you have a grievance with WP as a whole or with Gwen Gale (and/or me) in particular, feel free to express it. But first ask yourself if you want it to have effect or merely to be somehow cathartic. The former: You're free to embark on a swingeing reasoned attack on one or more editors in one place (past complaints have let to administrators being censured or booted out) and plead for the article's deletion in another, if you wish, and you're also free to link from the one to the other. The latter: If you're just waving your arms around, expect people to tune you out. -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to withhold further comment until I had some sleep and time to critique the logic behind your deletion decision. I am delaying a trip this morning so that I can provide you with a response to your statement supporting deletion.
Your supporting statement for deletion is as follows:
"The result was Delete. The deletion argument was that this is original research when the article title is used to describe an algorithm, and that the references do not support the notability of the subject. Despite the verbose nature of the opposing comment, these arguments were not clearly refuted. The use of socks to give the appearance of greater support is also extremely problematic, and I have counted those opinions as being from User:Julie Dancer. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)"
As for "The deletion argument was that this is original research when the article title is used to describe an algorithm..."
In reality the article title names a type of classification which arranges attributes in order of their significance. Within the deletion discussion itself the claim is made by Dcoetzee at 02:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC) that other algorithms exist, namely Examples of relevant works are "A Fast, Bottom-Up Decision Tree Pruning Algorithm with Near-Optimal Generalization" and "An Efficient Algorithm For Optimal Pruning Of Decision Trees". which are capable of performing the function the article title names:[reply]
If this is accurate then the right way to handle a necessary correction would be to add these algorithms to the article instead of nominating the article for deletion.
In anticipation of these other algorithms being added I immediately changed the body of the text form "The algorithm used for this purpose..." to "One algorithm used for this purpose..." Since I do not now have access to the article's history as the result of your deletion I can not give you the exact date and time. However, it was prior to the end of the deletion discussion. (Incidentally, it has been suggested by a Professor at Cornell that deleting the article was for the purpose of eliminating the article history.)
Normally as a Wikipedia user I would expect other users who have an issue with such wording to correct it themselves as this is one reason the Wikipedia was setup this way. The Wikipedia still claims to be "...the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
The impression I have now is that while there were an abundance of editors in the beginning who edited articles that there is now an abundance of spoiled children who expect articles to be perfect from the beginning or for someone else to edit them. They simply do not understand that each article is considered to be a work in progress and the Wikipedia being an opportunity to learn how to write and to edit rather than being completed. Instead of doing any work themselves they find it much easier to go around deleting articles which remain incomplete or have not yet reached a state of perfection, especially a maintenance edit like adding an inline reference that would require them to do any real work themselves.
As for "...references not supporting the notability of the subject"
You can not logically make this statement without reading the reference or references first and you certainly can not follow this with a statement like "Despite the verbose nature of the opposing comment, these arguments were not clearly refuted." All of the arguments supporting deletion are clearly refuted in the text of the primary reference to which I deferred. Just as you saying that a stop light was green in a court of law when you did not look at the light would be a lie so would be claiming the reference did not support notability when you did not read it. I know you did not read the primary reference because all arguments supporting deletion are clearly refuted by the both the primary reference and the references it contains.
As for "The use of socks to give the appearance of greater support is also extremely problematic...
This shows you did not read or comprehend the response I made in the deletion discussion or only scanned it. I explained that each of the user names were created so that I could track the use of my own resources better, similar to the need on the part of the Wikipedia to require bots to have their own user name even though several may be owned by the same user. Eventually at least one of my computes will be used to accommodate bots, but currently I am able to meet all of my needs by downloading the Wikipedia and mining it off line.
Since the existence of the alternate user names was stated and known by all from the beginning of the deletion discussion there is no way they could have given the appearance of offering greater support against deletion except to persons who did no read and come up to speed on what ground the deletion discussion had already covered.
Here is a copy of my first response to that accusation:
"Use of these various resources can not be tracked online in any other way and contrary to Jiuguang's imagination they have never been used in a sock puppet fashion and are not intended to be used in that way. They simply serve my own need to keep track of what I and my resources are doing and I defy you to show that they have ever been used intentionally in any other way. Julie Dancer (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)"
Here is a copy of my second response to the accusation of using alternate user names for the purpose giving any appearance whatsoever of greater support against deletion
"It can skew the view of consensus perhaps in an argument but only when it is not known and I have never engaged in an argument on the basis of numbers versus reason. My basis for winning any argument is the basis of being right not the basis of out numbering. In that regard what about the fact that skewing the view of consensus is in far greater danger from Wikipedia members who have something in common like belonging to the same robotics cabal or who share a mutual obligation from belonging to the same religious sect or school of thought and know who each other are. This happens, as a matter of fact, quite frequently in the Wikipedia. Julie Dancer (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)"
As for support for deletion not being cabalized, if you look on Jiuguang's talk page for the day or day after he first posted his robotics project template banner on the Optimal classification discussion page and on the his AI project page which I think he has already deleted you will find that he and - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs have a robotics connection.
Since they use their real name as their user names I am convinced now that their mind set was that Julie Dancer was the name of a real live girl. This would explain why Jiuguang was looking for other information about Julie Dancer and how he found the other user names, and why Jiuguang and Jameson Tai were playing good cop, bad cop with Julie Dancer on “her” talk page and on the deletion discussion page.
You are more than welcome to move it there if you so desire. My reason for posting this here is for your benefit entirely since I have decided not to republish the article in the Wikipedia until there is at least a requirement for users who want to nominate an article for deletion have first tried to make a correction and failed, have placed a template for whatever problems they think exists and in the case of legitimate issues or concerns the actual author(s) have been given a chance but failed to make any necessary corrections. It is a matter of professional courtesy. My two year old gives me more warning of a tantrum or other problem than I got here. Julie Dancer (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. Started edited 5 minutes after JD was blocked, and the same interests, and the same pattern of re-editing posts for spelling and grammar. Kevin (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, but what can we do about anonymous IPs of said blocked editor making personal attacks on User talk:Jiuguang Wang's talk page? The account's been blocked for a week or something like that the last I heard, but I think we need to do something about this. The blocked editor needs to understand that he/she needs to let this go. Thanks. - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs07:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I believe that the user User:In5ecUr!ty may be a sock puppet for User:Avi15. The User, Avi15, spent most of yesterday throwing speedy deletion tags on a number of article. I warned him about not putting speedy deletion tags on new articles I created for new hurling players. A lot of other editors also warned him about his actions and he seemed to stop. Anyways, the new user I talk about, was created today and low and behold, the new user started to throwing speedy deletion tags on new hurling players i created and randomly on loads of other article without justification.
After more investigation, both users also placed speedy deletion tags on editors, user pages and talk pages in the last 24 hours. I am now almost certain that both editors are the same person with User:In5ecUr!ty being a sock puppet.
This guy thats accusing me of sockpuppetry has no verification for his claims. As I said, I placed his article up for deletion with the {db-g1} tage becuase at the time it was lousy - (nonsense; hardly any content). If you need any proof of my innocence simply refer to my contributions: as you can see everything's legit. He also accuses me of sockpuppeteering User:In5ecUr!ty, however if you check his contributions this huy actually blanked several articles and then placed them up for deletion. As for the outlandish libel that ties in with Australian and Jewish articles, the only person at fault there is ManfromDelmonte who's trying to fulfill his personal vendetta against me, with his Anti-Australian and Anti-Semitic sentiments. Cheers Avi15 (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please withdraw your accusation that I am either anti-Australia or anti-Semetic. I have never made any anti-Australian or anti-Semetic gestures in my edits. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is going on here. User:In5ecUr!ty has been indefinitely blocked as a vandal only account, and User:Avi15 is blocked for 24 hours for vandalism also. Note that this is temporary, while I look at his contribs more closely. Kevin (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have just deleted this on the grounds that it's replaceable with a free one.
How is it replaceable? If I could have found a free one I'd have used it.
You also left references to the picture in the article which made it look appalling as well as leaving the mess in the box where the picture used to be. How can changes like this possible IMPROVE wikipedia???Fork me (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the article, I don't know how I missed the caption. Sorry about that. The image though was nominated as replaceable by someone else, who also notified you. I deleted it because seeing as Peter Ward is living, a free image could be made. The criteria is not if such an image is currently available, it is if one could foreseeably be made to replace it. Kevin (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'The criteria is not if such an image is currently available, it is if one could foreseeably be made to replace it.' That's an absolutely stupid criteria. Fork me (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how it seems that way. The reason behind it is to make sure that fair use images are only used where absolutely neccesary. The policy at WP:NFC has all the criteria, and some guidelines. You would probably be more frustrated on the German Wikipedia, where they do not allow fair use images at all. Kevin (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
As Peter Ward is a retired footballer, does this mean that I could get away with a fair use rationale for a picture from his playing days? For example, scanned from an old program?Fork me (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make an argument that his physical appearance in the old image is neccesary, and there is commentary about that in the article then you could. For instance, if he was noted for a particular style of play, and an image was found that illustrated that. Kevin (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was done to prevent you from continually recreating the article whos only purpose is to promote your web site. See WP:COI and WP:WEB for more info on writing when you have a conflict of interest, and for the notability guidelines on web sites. Kevin (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blink Me Article
You Deleted My Article Blink Me. You Wrote It Was Advertising. Although It Wasnt, That is like Saying All Documentaries Are Advertisment. That would mean you would Have to delete all Articles Containing Documentaries, Yet That sounds Stupid. This Documentary Is coming out, I'm Just asking.. Once the Doc Has came out would i be able to repost this topi with more information? as long as it meets the guidelines, Any Helpful tips you could Suggest?
ThomasDeLongeJr (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC) ThomasDeLongeJr[reply]
Once this documentary has been released, and has become notable, by all means you should write an article about it. The guidelines at WP:MOVIE have information about how you can show that your doco is notable. Basically, if it has received a major award, reviews by nationally known critics, and a few others, then it is notable. Feel free to ask me again about this once it is released. Kevin (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John W. Dickenson and Graeme Henderson's veiled attack on invention
The FAI diploma was pushed in Australia by legal and loud threats by Graeme Henderson.
He initiated the biography and almost all references were gradually built by his untenable claim and sets of over-claim. The biography cannot be NPV without conflict of interest if any Graeme Henderson-based reference is used. The errors in the FAI diploma wording do severe injustice to many people. JD did not mechanically invent the hang glider he made.
Graeme H. owns the site he references; he carefully crafted a veiled support for some untenable interpretive claims. There is no problem with facts, but GH has had five or so years of practice tweaking veiled over-claim on JD. I invested over 2000 hours in the last two years trying to bring forward how GH's over-claims are factually over-claims. I have no more energy for the project. It appears that GH will get into Wikipedia a very hurtful set of over-claims about JD. FAI rubber stamps Australia org; GH pushed and gave severe threats ...than ended up in the diploma and plaque wording. Also, check out that Space Hall of Fame thing. Joefaust (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to have to do a lot better that this to convince me that the FAI is involved in some kind of misinformation campaign. If you have invested so much time into this, then you should consider whether you have a conflict of interest, and whether you are able to edit the article in a neutral manner. I agree that the GH link looks like a soapbox for some claims, and I will remove it. Kevin (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I am not claiming that the FAI is on a campaign; I am saying that the FAI does in fact simply accept the worded nomination from the leading org of Australia; and the fully story of the wording of that diploma in Australia stems from a severe threat path by GH; the wording does not get oversight rewrite by FAI. There are several overclaims and errors in the diploma wording...all traced from the push by GH in Australia. Subtract the severe push by GH from the literature of hang gliding (and thus the Woodhams ref and several web site refs) and we get an almost non-notable situation for a biography. The whole of mechanical invention of what JD crafted had full prior materiality...and so he cannot be the mechanical inventor of what he crafted and used; but that is the press by GH for many years now. To get a NPOV on a biography of JD, one cannot let enter any GH-constructed tree of writing. The matters have been delineated in the OZ Report over the last two years. I do bow out of the wiki on JD, as I so deeply care about the protection of invention in hang gliding; the GH slant is ripping at the credit that belongs to others. There are ways to have a neutral biography on JD, but the tree of influences made by GH is not the way. Joefaust (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HERE IS THE WHAT GH got Australia org to FAI for rubber-stamping:
"John DICKENSON (Australia)
John Dickenson invented the modern hang glider at Grafton, Australia. It was flown on 8 September 1963. John built scale models to determine design concepts, until a full sized glider was towed behind a speedboat. He incorporated the control bar into the airframe by designing the A-frame to distribute flight, refining this further when he invented the pendulum weight-shift control system. John developed the piloting techniques, and taught all the early pilots, including Hang Gliding pioneers Bill Moyes and Bill Bennett, to fly the wing. John Dickenson’s invention has been copied by every manufacturer globally, with few minor changes for over a decade."
Here are GH influences in that:
. JD did not invent, he crafted what had been invented before him.
. The item he built was a manned kite. He did not build a glider at first.
. One does not "distribute flight".
. The cable-stayed triangle control frame was fully instructed in hang gliding in the late 1800s, again strongly in Breslau 1908 in a gliding club, and very strongly by the George Spratt triangle control bar cable staying a hang glider in control wing format as modern hang gliders use.
. "the" is abused in several places. He was not first to develop piloting techniques for hang gliders and not for Rogallo wing hang gliders.
. He did not invent the pendulum weight-shift control system. Hang gliding from all before used pendulum weight-shift control. And very specifically many others did the full pendulum weight shift control. Then also NASA came to use the same weight-shift control of pilot mass.
. It is very false claiming he taught all the early pilots. Thousands of hang glider pilots in early years were NOT taught by him.
. The claim of "copied" by "every" is extremely false and unjust to so very many people. Ugh.
. Changes were not minor. Divergent diving of the JD craft had to be fully avoided. Irv Culver twist, kinposted dive stops, advanced Rogallo aspect ratio and sail cut control, and much more were referencing NASA items, not JD for changes.
The diploma was pressed by GH in Australia; the tree of command to FAI cannot blame FAI.
But historical oversight is still the responsibility of Wikipedia authors, I guess.
Well, it it Wikipedia's responsibility to report what has been reliably published. Where do you think we should look to find a reliable and neutral source? Kevin (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image deletions
Image:Vithoba-rakhumai.JPG and Image:Vajreshwari.jpg are not so replacable as the temple does not allow photography of the main deities for the general people, but however official temple photographers click the photos and release them for sale, like most Hindu temples. Vajreshwari and Rakhumai, the Pandharpur form of Rukmini, free-pics are not available, although they are considered fair-use for informative and devotional purposes. Thus, fair use in articles Vajreshwari temple (article is not only about the temple, but also about the goddess) and Rukmini. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted these for 2 reasons - they are replaceable in that it does not seem essential that the articles have these particular representations of the deities, and the articles contained no commentary specifically relating to these representaions, just the deities in general, or the temple in general. The second reason was that they failed WP:NFCC#8 in that they did not significantly add to the readers understanding of the subject, because both articles contined other, free images that served much the same purpose. Kevin (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kollage Again
Hi Kevin, You had moved this to my user space. I have added another reference now. Can it now be brought to the mainstream? Please see.Their second album releases in December. Need this pre-release desperately. Thanks!
The 2 references show notability, but it does need to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic fashion. At the moment it looks very promotional, and contains much information that is not supported by the references. If you can clean it up a bit it should be OK. Kevin (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin,
I have now made it more factual and have removed all eulogies and adjectives. Please see if it is ready now for consideration.
I have made a couple of changes, and added templates for the references. I thnk it just needs a little more cleaning up and will then be ready. If I get time I will look again tonight, my time.
HOKLAS
Dear Kelvin,
I have made a page of HOKLAS. You have deleted my page while I am editing the page. Might you email me a copy of the page so that I can add details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickyip (talk • contribs)
It won't work - the user gets a new IP whenever they log in or reset their router, and the range is too heavily populated with good users to apply a rangeblock. I can protect your user/talk pages if you like? Kevin (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try to follow Wikipedia policy at AFD, with people who filibuster every nomination you start, who make nonsensical points, argue based on essays and personal animus toward Wikipedia policies, have to constantly re-explain to both Wikipedians and closers of AFD's that policy cannot simply be ignored, and have them ignore what you say and do it anyway, and have other people like admins say "be nice to them, and talk it out", and do this about 200+ times, and have them call you names, and cry about how your destroying their work, and have your userpage locked to keep it from being vandalized with shocking images, and then you can explain to me how to not become angry, and annoyed, and frustrated by the ridiculous process AFD has become. Do that, and I am willing to take any advice you can offer, because I think I will be very enlightening after that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was pulled into the Security Office at my university after User:Julie Dancer sent an email to the Florida Tech's President's Office regarding potential stalking claim as well as noting the AfD of Optimal Classification. This is the first time someone has attempted to track me down in real life from Wikipedia, so I would like to request assistance regarding the issue. I have explained to the Director of Security (equivalent of a university police department chief) regarding the issue, but I want to see what resources I have to help clear my name. Any assistance offered will be much appreciated. Thanks. - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs07:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to advise you to do here. Do you know if anyone else has been contacted / threatened? The fact that she contacted campus police and not Florida PD says to me that she is more interested in harrassment than actually pursuing a claim of stalking. I would suggest having campus security forward the email onto the arbitration comittee, and they may be able to respond with the facts and get campus security off your back. I'm going to think more on this and come back later. Kevin (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly likely to be rejected, on the grounds that there is no remedy available, given that Julie Dancer and all her sockpuppets are already indefinitely blocked. Kevin (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've restored based on the German article. Had you written that content here in the first place, it would likely have not been deleted. Kevin (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean that he has reverted 3 times, which is OK, while you have reverted 4 times. As you are obviously aware of WP:3RR, I guess you don't need a warning before being blocked. Kevin (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are probably open CGI/PHP/web proxies, or at least semi-open anonymising proxies, though their domain names may take time to track down. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Why was Diesel Bombers Page Deleted , heres a Page with less info on it .... DieselMinded (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It was deleted because the website does not meet the notability criteria of WP:WEB. You would need to show newspaper of magazine articles written about the site to show that it is notable. Kevin (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That clipping seems a little like an advertisement rather than an article written about the web site. Nowhere near enough to prove notability, I'm afraid. Kevin (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canibaloki is not blocked at all, just his IP. It is currently blocked for 3 years I think as an open proxy. I have left information there on what needs to be done to fix that, and as soon as the open proxy is turned off the IP can be unblocked. Kevin (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, no problem. I 'went down" to WP:AN and left them a notice. Turns out that apparently Wikipedia had a problem catching up with the 3000+ edits of the article when attempting to restore it…or at least that is what I was told. Do U(knome)?yes...or no22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question had been vandalizing straw polls to reflect his own imagined consensus and insulting other users that disagreed with him. I was giving him a stern warning to change his behavior, and did not attack him personally. If WP:CIVIL means "don't say anything ever that might hurt anyone's feelings", we might as well let all the silly high school kids with nothing better to do run rampant. JuJube (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you insist, I'll change the statement. But I stand by my "ridiculous" argument and am frankly a little irritated that you're pulling the "semantics" card here. I'll be nicer to blatant vandals who hate Wikipedia in the future. :/ JuJube (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kevin! I noticed you just declined my speedy deletion for the reason 'article is not a bio'. Unless I'm mistaken, the {{db-bio}} templates encompasses people, groups, companies, etc. In a quick Google search, I was able to find virtually nothing asserting notability regarding the football/soccer club. Latics (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always try to be safe, and db-bio strictly refers to biographies of people, not organisations. To make it easier for admins, you should use {{db-corp}} or {{db-org}} for organizations. If you re-tag, I'll leave it to another admin. Kevin (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a thanks for correcting the Kixx article. I'm a bit tired and sometimes fail to check the page history before slapping on a speedy tag. Latics (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I speedy deleted the nonsense that I found, but then realised that was a vandalised version of the article when someone complained. I didn't notice the AfD at all - silly me. Having said that, the present version doesn't look too bad to me. Deb (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion of "Trans Europe Halles"
Hi!
I don't visit Wikipedia that often, but today (when contributing some more) I noticed that you played part in deleting an article of mine.
The reasons stated dealt with possible copyright infringement.
Is it possible to bring the article back? I mean, without me having to do it all over?
The reason why you and the bot found similarities in the text it's because it's from the same source, namely TEH.
TEH is a network of independent cultural venues where alot of the members are not native to the english tongue.
The bot stated a text found a www.ufafabrik.de which is one of our german members. The text was created by the coordination office to describe the organization.
So the text was a standard description of this non-profit organization. If it didn't meet up to the standards, that's fine. But to say it was copyright infringement is just sad.
Well, regardless of who wrote the text, and for whatever purpose, if it has been previously published it is automatically copyrighted, unless the website(s) note that the text is released under a free license. This article cannot be restored because of this copyright issue. You can find the text though, at [5] and [6]. Kevin (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I speedy deleted the nonsense that I found, but then realised that was a vandalised version of the article when someone complained. I didn't notice the AfD at all - silly me. Having said that, the present version doesn't look too bad to me. Deb (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion of "Trans Europe Halles"
Hi!
I don't visit Wikipedia that often, but today (when contributing some more) I noticed that you played part in deleting an article of mine.
The reasons stated dealt with possible copyright infringement.
Is it possible to bring the article back? I mean, without me having to do it all over?
The reason why you and the bot found similarities in the text it's because it's from the same source, namely TEH.
TEH is a network of independent cultural venues where alot of the members are not native to the english tongue.
The bot stated a text found a www.ufafabrik.de which is one of our german members. The text was created by the coordination office to describe the organization.
So the text was a standard description of this non-profit organization. If it didn't meet up to the standards, that's fine. But to say it was copyright infringement is just sad.
Well, regardless of who wrote the text, and for whatever purpose, if it has been previously published it is automatically copyrighted, unless the website(s) note that the text is released under a free license. This article cannot be restored because of this copyright issue. You can find the text though, at [7] and [8]. Kevin (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for rejecting speedy deletion
Dear Kevin, I'd like to commend you for declining the speedy tag on Cooperative optimization. I've sometimes seen administrators grant speedy deletion requests either without checking that the criteria apply or by forcing the article to fall under one of the criteria. This seems especially likely with technical topics that most people have never heard of. The article cooperative optimization might eventually have to be deleted because it fails the notability guideline, but it's too complicated to be speedily deleted. I have sometimes berated people for speedily deleting articles incorrectly, so I thought now that I should thank you for keeping to the criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started out uninvolved (actually trying to help the guy), and then spent several hours dealing with someone hysterically accusing me of being part of the Evil Republican CabalTM, and eventually it gets hard to know if I've magically crossed some line and "become involved". Glad an outside opinion doesn't think I'm crazy. --barneca (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get a T-shirt for that cabal? I was in a Communist Chinese cabal a while ago, and got nothing. Glad to help, anyway. Kevin (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banned user
You are active in this hours :)
Tomorow Thatcher will confirm this puppet and after that I want to call you for puppet blocking during next days. This will be OK ??--Rjecina (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In history of article Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991 you will see that administrator Joy has moved article to this name, blocked article moving to Dalmatian Serb pogrom of May 1991 and created consensus version. Maybe I am mistaking but if you want in similar way you can block moving of article to Dalmatian Kristallnacht of May 1991.
Because banned user has asked help of other users for article Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara I only want to inform you that lyrics of this "song" are deleted because of copyright (created in 1942 which is writen in article). Your thinking about this ? --Rjecina (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. I suspect User:Pasha011 (see Special:Contributions/Pasha011) to be possible sock of Pax. This account was created recently when the most of other were, Pax has never edited Zadar article before, but what Pasha011 is pushing there now is the same what Pax was doing in other articles last month. It's possible that he spreads his actions on other users he was opposing in the past, after being a shadow of Rjecina in the last month. Please can you check it? Zenanarh (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible, but if it is Pax the behavior is a lot more subtle, much more so than I would be willing to block on. User:Thatcher can spot Pax socks at 50 paces, to perhaps you should ask him. Kevin (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was approached on IRC to see if removing youtube links on userpages would be allowed if the video link points to copyvio youtube material... but then there are also youtube userpages that are ok...right until you see a copyvio video on the youtube user profile... if that profile is linked to a userpage on wiki, should that link be removed too? Thanks for your help. - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs13:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube links to copyrighted material should be removed, although if it is on a users page you should probably ask them to remove it first. I don't think there is a problem with other copyvios in their profile that we have not linked to, as that is beyond our control. If we did remove those type of links we would need to check back regularly on all youtube links to make sure all their videos are OK. That said, if they are using one token acceptable video to attract viewers to their larger stash of copyright videos, then we should use our discretion, and possibly remove the link. I don't think there is a clear cut answer I'm afraid. Kevin (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. I had posted a concern to my East718 about a certain editor you have recently become familiar with. But East is in/out of Wiki right now due to personal health issues. My post to him is User talk:East718#Another memory booster for you. Just wondering if you might comment on the issue. My AGF is that the user has learned their lesson. But past history and now todays return to the project with the same modus operandi makes any AGF for good faith extremely weak. Blocked by East718 for 79 hours for edit warring... an extended block after an SSP check revealed sockpuppetry to side-step the block. Todays attacks and a return to the page that got him blocked in the first place.. not just with a revert away from consensus to his own pov... but accompanied by a threat as well. I expect the same ol', same ol' disruption and personal attacks to just continue. Is it at the level of a community sanction/perma ban? It must be getting awfully close. Appreciate you input. Thanks. Have a nice day! Libs14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"You recently deleted my three uploaded images here in English Wikipedia: Barangay Bilogo, Batangas City.JPG, Batangas City's Official Flag.GIF and The Maximal Dinobot.JPG."
Kevin, could those images that you've deleted be restored again here in Wikipedia by means of following the correct procedure in uploading images? Below is the specific conditions and example:
When I uploaded the specific image of "The MaximalDinobot.JPG" here in English Wikipedia, I place it as my own work though it was not. Actually it came from the other website.
This all started:
I'm interested to put an image to the article Dinobot, a fictional Beast Wars Character.
I decided to surf the Internet, hoping to find an appropriate image for that article.
I managed to find a good one (the one that you've deleted) so I copied it from that host website and place it on my PC, then I uploaded it gradually to Wikipedia.
Things go wrong now with that image. I specified it as "my own work" and afterwards, you've deleted it due to the copyright problem.
If I'll try to revive it again, could this be possible. And if it's possible, what kind of image characterization is appropriate for it. My guess: It is "An Image from a Website" but I'll need your advice. You have more experienced here in Wikipedia than me. Thanks. .Kampfgruppe (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot restore the Google Earth image, as it is copyrighted and I cannot see any way that it could be classed as fair use. The other 2 could possibly be classed as fair use. If you like i can restore those 2, so that you can add fair use licenses and rationales. SeeWP:RAT for info on fair use rationales. Unfortunately it is not very simple. Kevin (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks. I wish to restore those two images but you've said that it's not simple so I'll just wait if the process would take for a long time. Alert me on my talk page as you finish. I'm confused in adding fair use licenses and rationales so by that time, I'll ask assistance to you.Kampfgruppe (talk)12:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the images is simple, it's the rules regarding image licensing that are not. I've restored the 2 images so you can look at the licensing. Kevin (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - was caught up in something else. The reason is now there, basically your username is the same as the company you have written about, so I see it as being promotional in nature. Kevin (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
I think thats why my Page keeps getting Deleted. I have reviewed COI and Notablility and it passes both. I believe They think im trying to Advertise for the Company ( which im not )and it keeps getting banned for " Blatant Advertisement" when in reality there is none —Preceding unsigned comment added by LorinComputers (talk • contribs) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One way to prevent that would be to change your username at WP:CHU to something not related to the company. This needs to be done first, as your username is a blatant enough violation of the username policy that you could be blocked. The you need to review WP:CORP, which tells you how to make sure the company is notable enough for an article, and WP:COI which will help you understand haw to go about editing articles on subjects you have a close relationship with. Kevin (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gnah! I hate those socket-zoos. But isnt this another try to evade a block (and for me the conclusion of that is a worse block/bann for the sockpuppeter). And by the way, for what is checkuser needed? Regards, abf/talk to me/12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A checkuser could find out any other accounts that have not been used, and might be able to find an IP to block, so as to prevent more accounts being created. There is another one now - User:Moonbrother, also on de.wiki. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thats a really nice idea! But we allready have got the IP's, see
on Campingkirche, an article created by Weissmann and later stubbed to NPOV, User:Moonbrother just reintroduced a Weissmann pic. His other edits to Balve and Meschede are also typical Weissmann topics. I strongly suspect that this is a new sockpuppet.
I have already filled the details of the rationale requirments of the image. Please check it out to correct some errors if possible. Thanks! I'll will finish my task too for the Batangas City' Official Flag.gif but not now. It can tomorrow. I have a lot to do now.Abner S. Hermoso 14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Good day Kevin. I would be glad if you can help me with this. Would you have a look on Meshuggah and fix/tell me if there is something to fix, please? I want to know the opinion of somebody who is not involved in this kind of articles. I did some chages to the article in the last couple of days and I want to solve as many things as possible before renomming it at FAC. It would really help me if you can have a look on it. Have a nice day!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 13:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
House images
Would it be better to take screenshots of the actors from the show? There needs to be some way to visually identify these characters. If I took actual screenshots of them would that be acceptable fair use? I understand what you mean about the headshots, but I specifically cropped a couple of the images to be headshots so they could be seen better in small thumbnail size. Perhaps one promotional photo of the whole cast would be better. Also, the user that originally tagged all the images did not do a complete job. Are these images acceptable because they are not just headshots? I'm just trying to understand for future reference.
Image:HouseGregoryHouse.png,
Image:Lisa Cuddy.jpg (that one is at least a screenshot),
Image:Robertseanleonard.jpg,
Image:Cameron.a.jpg
Also note that I made the mistake of mentioning The West Wing on that user's talk page and now I see he has tagged several of the images in that article for deletion as well. The images he tagged for deletion are in a featured article and most of them have been on Wikipedia for 3+ years. Also, of the eight pictures (not counting the top one of the title screen) on the main West Wing article, he tagged six of them, what the difference between the other two is I cannot tell. A user going about tagging images in this fashion does not seem productive. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a distinction between fair use images in an article about an individual character, and those in cast lists. For the cast list, a shot of the whole cast would be more suitable I think. I am probably the wrong person to ask though, as I am a lot stricter on fair use than many admins. You may find other opinions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the pic on Campingkirche - he has got a point in that I cannot really give an objective explanation for the removal of the pic. I just do not like it. It's POV pushing and it's a bad photograph (look at the gray area in the centre of it) but it somehow illustrates what Campingkirche is. What do you think one can do about it? Regards, Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked this latest sock. Feel free to revert all the account's edits. For me, the image adds nothing, it could be anywhere really. Long term, if the sockpuppetry continues I'll see if a range block can be applied. I suspect that there would be too many good users affected though. Kevin (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Celines Toribio page, why was the image deleted? The image was added at the request of Ms. Toribio herself. We have the permission of the photo owner to use for promotional purposes here and other locations. I am not familiar with how to reflect this on an image's page. It's a bit difficult to understand. I'd like to re-add the photo so if you can instruct me specifically how to do that without it being deleted again I would appreciate it. Thank you so much! 2012Dance (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, just to let you know I've tried to follow the procedure outlined when you upload a pic. I hope I did it right this time.... 2012Dance (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image you uploaded is missing the license tag. Where did the image come from? If you let me know that I can possibly do the rest. If it is a publicity shot, then the copyright holder (likely the photographer who took the shot) needs to give permission for its use by following the directions at WP:COPYREQ. Kevin (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Use Images
Fine by me, I'm thankfully not using a bot to handle these, despite the speed.
Delink won't be happening from date of this message, obviously those already de-linked
might need to be re-linked if resolved.
Can you put forward an appropriate RFC to amend the template to say the images shouldn't be de-linked even if the time limit has epxired?
Also much appreciated if there was a 'less' ominous way of stating 'original' sourcing was missing from an FUR, without having to DFU it. One for the TWINKLE authours?
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a big problem, just that when you are reviewing many images the context can make it quicker. It's probably fair enough to remove the image if admins are not dealing with the backlog in a timely fashion. {{di-no source}} can be used if the source is missing, no matter which license has been applied. Twinkle has an option for this tag. If an image has a source, but it is unclear as to whether the original copyright holder has released the image with the license asserted by the copyright holder, then {{di-no permission}} can be used. Kevin (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the whole thing was not a request
I see you have removed the entire Palin supports teaching both evolution and creationism political position from the political positions section. As it stood, nobody on the talk page was asking for that, so saying "per consensus" in your edit summary is in error. You should also be aware that the section looked very different before being fully protected. Another admin made a huge change to it, without consensus on the talk page. If you want to take the heat and revert another admin, you should probably revert Moreschi, not just blank a paragraph. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is another issue entirely. I removed a single edit that was made without a talk page consensus. If a consensus for some form of that sentence to be replaced comes about, then it can go back in. Kevin (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it that way. Ferrylodge and Kelly wanted it to say, "teaching about creationism and evolution" and quite a few people wanted it to say, "teaching both creation and evolution". You could have picked on or the other as the near consensus view. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Moreschi's earlier edit, changing the section and claiming she's a "classical libertarian" in favor of the "minimal state"? Talk about a BLP concern. Look down on the talk page, that has zero consensus, since no sources at all can be found that say that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was think of restricting my self to one revert of another admins actions per day, and so I will leave that for another admin. On the creationism bit, I didn't pick any side, just noted the edit with no apparent consensus or edit request, and so I reverted it. Kevin (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is best that the section continues to be wildly inaccurate, so that readers can recognize that they are being lied to and use Google to find out what the real deal is. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. Thanks for blocking those socks and for tagging the userpages. One thing, though, could you possibly tag them {{sockpuppetcheckuser|MarthaFiles|MarthaFiles}}? It'll make it much clearer to others - thanks! :) - Alison❤07:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I wish your speedy of this was valid, I don't actually think it was. In the guidelines for hoaxes, it specifically states to AFD them. I might be wrong - but I don't think deleting things like this was the idea behind G10. Sorry to intrude, but I wouldn't want that to happen in the future to a suspected hoax that actually turned out to be true and worthy of an article. Brilliantine (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if the hoax is actually an attack on someone, especially when the accusation is as serious as this one, then I think it is valid. Perhaps I should list it at WP:DRV? Kevin (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - I was just thinking out loud, mainly. There could be any number of people named Joshua Tolbert, and it would be pretty much impossible to tell which one of them it was supposed to be attacking, as it was completely fabricated. It's probably not worth taking it to DRV, and making calls like this is one of the reasons I would hate to be an administrator. Brilliantine (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've blocked the most recent IP. It seems very dynamic, and I was told before that a range block would cause too much collateral damage. Is there a list of articles I should watchlist? Kevin (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the look of things, optimization and classification algorithms in general, which covers a lot of articles. I wonder if a Google Alert will help..let me get back to you on that. --Jiuguang (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my solution: set up Google Alerts for "site:en.wikipedia.org 71.100.*.*" or "site:en.wikipedia.org "optimal classification"". Both seems to be effective in tracking his contributions. For example, would it surprise you that this comment refers to various reference desk disruptions leading to a infinite block, and User talk:71.100.167.23 details various personal attacks as well as 3RR violations? Both cases date back to pre-Optimal Classification. --Jiuguang (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the official policies and found WP:Abuse reports. I've delivered a final warning here. Let me know if you see any further 71.100.*.* sightings. We need to take care of this, permanently, because the constant reverts are getting very annoying. --Jiuguang (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone down that path a few times, but invariably there is little response from the ISP, I guess because the IP is their customer and I am not. I'm going to try a few things out today. Kevin (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reblocked those 2 IPs for another month, as they started the same thing up again. If I have time I'll look at the others. Kevin (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redspruce
User Redspruce is back from his week ban and is already edit warring and insulting people again. One of his first acts when unblocked was to revert what he had been blocked previously for on the same article. See his talk page for his insulting Elonka. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is not "non-free". If you bothered to look at the Copyright section of the Smithsonian website, you might've noticed that it allows fair use under the rationale that it is being used for education purposes (ie. Wikipedia), as long as it is cited - which I had done.
However, I will make this easy for me. I will take a picture of my Krag's bolt, and then it will be my intellectual property. There should be no problems with that, I assume?
I might have looked at the Smithsonian site if it had been mentioned on the image page, but it wasn't. Sorry you're upset about it. Kevin (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer upset. But to clear up any misconception, it *was* mentioned in the description of the picture. I posted that it was from the Smithsonian, exactly what exhibit it was from, and that it was being used for education purposes (ie. "fair use"), and the actual website, in case anybody cared to look up the Copyright information and the Smithsonian terms of use - those terms being that I post the aforementioned information. That's why I found it odd that you hadn't chosen to visit the Smithsonian site to verify. You understand why, after posting the necessary information, and seeing the picture deleted erroneously, I might've been just a little peeved. To me, the action defied logic. But it no longer matters, everything has been straitened out. I hope the (new) picture will remain in place, as all Wikipedia terms have been satisfied completely. I do not log into Wikipedia often, except to repair any vandalism that I notice while researching a topic, or to clear up any grossly disorganized text I may happen to observe. I appreciate your interest in the legalities involved, and that you were vigilant in responding to what you thought an incomplete citation. I apologize for not being able to sooner review the subject. Thank You, William R Wade (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I did not create the VFK article that you just deleted, but I was creating another version, when I noticed that it has been deleted. Can you tell me why this article was deleted? I intend to re-create it, and I would like to know what I can do to insure that it is not deleted again.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a hint as to the name of the deleted article? It's been a couple of weeks since I deleted anything, and I cannot find the one you are referring to. Kevin (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bhutan
Hi Kevin. Could you take a look at the Bhutan article when you have a moment. A link to this article is being added as a reference but the cited article seems, to me anyway, to be a travel article that only tangentially addresses the referenced material and is definitely not by an expert. Additionally, User:Miranda points out that the same person is adding similar references to other articles. My reasons for deleting the reference and the response from two editors are on Talk:Bhutan and I would appreciate it if you could take a look, particularly to check my reasoning and make sure it is not faulty. Thanks! --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't quite aware I was away, until I looked at my last edits. Time flies when you're busy I guess. I saw this sock, and I think there is one other from a few weeks back as well. Kevin (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bhutan and Kira Salak
Hi Kevin, I think you should look a little more closely at the content of the site that is being used as a reference for the snowman trail. The site is promotional, includes a link where you can buy the author's book, and hundreds of photos about the author. Jakestrum has added hundreds of these references all over wikipedia making the kira salak website one of our prominent reliable sources. I don't think this is a good idea at all. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 04:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky Holland deleted? both in his young life AND on Wikipedia?
You deleted Ricky Holland's article claiming his case did not receive national attention. To correct you, Ricky Holland's case was in fact featured on the nationally televised show called America's Most Wanted. I can understand that you weren't aware of the national coverage because you live in Australia. Please clarify, as I'd like to reinstate Ricky Holland's article. I think this case is as notable to Americans as the Schapelle Corby case is to Australians. In other words, many or most Australians are probably not be familiar with the Ricky Holland case, while many or most Americans are probably not familiar with the Schapelle Corby case - yet much of your server space has been given to her case, while Ricky Holland's article has been deleted, by you. Another example of murders gaining extensive coverage locally, but not internationally, are the Moors murders, which is another subject well represented on Wikipedia. This was a British case that perhaps Australians and Americans may not have heard of, yet per all the BBC references, it was a very important case in Britain. In your deletion comments of the Ricky Holland article, though you incorrectly state that it did not receive national attention, you do mention that Ricky's case received heavy local coverage in a geographical area about similar to that of Britain. This said, wouldn't it make sense that Ricky's case is notable enough for Wikipedia, as much as Schapelle Corby's case and the Moors murders are? Please clarify so I can begin working on assembling this information accordingly. Thank you.
Also, I presume if weeks go by and there is no response from you, I should assume you are in approval of the addition of the Ricky Holland article, presuming his story is cited accordingly as a nationally covered story.
Cdcruce (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you could have just asked me to restore the article. Articles deleted via the WP:PROD process are almost always restored if you ask. I didn't actually make any claims regarding the article content at all, that was the editor who nominated it for proposed deletion. Kevin (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpool0912
{{helpme}}
Hello Kevin,
i am responding because you have deleted my article Teo Wei Thai
//
Hi, I deleted your article Teo Wei Thai because there was no indication why this person is notable. You will need to show reliable published sources such as newspaper or magazine articles written about the person in order to prove that they are notable. I would usually say to ask on my talk page for more help, but I'm going away and may not be able to respond. Put {{helpme}} on this page to request help. Kevin (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)//.
As i did not see the requirements about publishing an article on wikipedia,i do not know the needs to place published sources on my article.However Teo Wei Thai has been in the news for quite a while and has appeared in the newspaper.Plus he has played in a professional soccer league in Singapore before and i do not see why he is not a notable person.He is both a soccer player and an actor.He is also a familar figure in the gaming industry too.If you would kindly restore the page, i would glady make amends to the article.I am going to repost his with reference if there is no reply in a week
Hi. I notice that you deleted Diego Bortolozzo back in July. The rationale was that there was no evidence that he had ever played in a fully professional league. I only just noticed that the article was deleted, but I'm surprised because he has played for Union Saint-Gilloise in Belgium (see here). Is there any way the article can be restored? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'll take a look at the article soon. One of the problems was that, because it was deleted, I couldn't tell what its content was so I didn't know whether it needed more work. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was. To me it looks like someone who has no intention of contributing. If I am wrong, then they are welcome to appeal. Kevin (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are different mechanisms for proposing a move vs a merge, but in this case I don't see the point in taking 3 steps back before moving forward. Now that there are 2 articles, leaving the merge tags seems to me to be the most neutral action to take. Kevin (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no steps back to take. The content is all merged already (all the new stuff he added in his new content fork in the last two weeks is already merged into excelsior (wood wool)). He just wants a move now. And the point of the process is to register the proposal to bring more uninvolved editors to comment on the merits of the proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have said the same thing about my opinions. Personal opinions of Wikipedia editors do not invalidate reliable sources. Is "irrelevant" a breach of civility in this context? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,i marked the page for speedy deletion because i created a page with about the same amount of
information as there is in the article and maybe even more but it was deleted for lacking enough context.That`s why i marked the page for deletion.Cheers,Jamiebijania (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per your question towards this point at my talk page also - It's only been a day Phoenix - so yes I think we do for a bit longer. Let's see if all others can discuss without too much disruption or COI for a bit longer.--VStalk 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)PS Indeed you only have to look at the discussion at the related article Saddleback Church to note that there is not a great deal of harmony between the editors.--VStalk22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just saw that. Btw, I know there was an edit war and everything but isnt "Malicious editors" a bit too strong? [13] Is this the right place to bring that up? Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it could be quite useful as a test. I intended to keep Rick Warren protected until the discussion moves away from being black and white toward some kind of compromise. I haven't seen any editprotected requests there since last week though, which is promising. Kevin (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 minute. Awesome. If there's one who managed to get blocked within the same minute they started, that would be something. That user ID... they might as well create a user ID "VandalismOnly" and be done with it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?04:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kevin, nice to meet you, ... I noticed several places the term "salted" (as in Items deleted and salted) ... what does that mean? thanks — Ched (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SALT - it means that the title has been protected so that the article cannot be created again. Typically used after you have deleted the same thing 2 or 3 times. Good to meet you too Ched. Cheers Kevin (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh ... makes perfect sense now. I didn't know about that level of protection (knew semi, move, full, etc.), but had never read that policy. Appreciate your time. Have a good one. ;) — Ched (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit wars
Hi there KEVIN, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,
I saw the message you dropped in PEEJAY's page, warning about an ongoing edit war that violated the three-revert rule (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeeJay2K3#February_2009), and that ultimately resulted in a short block for this user.
However, i come here to try (at least try) to take his side, because the other "edit warrior" is not very good in his wiki-actions, to say the least. First, he had an account under the name BRUNO P.DORI(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruno_P._Dori), whose main obsession consisted in players connected somehow with FC Barcelona. He engaged in no talkpage interaction and wrote 0 edit summaries and, after some warnings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruno_P._Dori) he was finally indef blocked.
Of course, i concur with you Kevin, an edit war over a single letter is not worth it, and of course it takes two to edit-war (and i have had my share with this guy also, i'll admit it), but take these two examples into consideration:
My wiki-friend, because this is getting extremely extreme and i don't want to be blocked like PEEJAY, if you tell me to stop because it is the best, i will.
Keep up the good work (would not be surprised some of the stuff has been again re-reverted), have a nice week,
I see what you are saying here, but at WP:3RR little of this type of information is generally available, and issues are dealt with using the information at hand. So for PeeJay2K3, or any editor, to avoid blocking, they need to avoid 3RR even if provoked. A better course of action would have been to wait for someone else to revert, ask for protection at WP:RFPP, or make a vandalism report at WP:AIV (I don't believe this case was vandalism though). With the IP socks you mention, it is difficult to deal with. There are plenty of good edits on that IP range so a range block is not practical, and seeing a Brazilian IP editing football articles is not so surprising, so it is difficult to quickly make the call that a particular IP is a block evading sock. Cheers Kevin (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Sarita and Terrillja
Observing the admonition against continuing a dispute on the Edit Warring noticeboard, and not knowing where to respond to some accusations posted there, I bring them to your attention here. If I am in error on this, please forgive me.
Ms. Sarita claims that she, Terrillja and Will Bebeck have all “tried to work with” me on the Paul Watson article. That claim is false. None of the three have “tried to work with” me. They have only tried to tell me what to do and what not to do, as if I was a small child. Ms. Sarita and Terrillja have done nothing more than repeatedly delete my edits to the Paul Watson article, and Will Bebeck merely left cryptic notes on my talk page with vague messages about “making uncivil remarks about other editors” but providing no specific information as to which editors or to which articles. I still don't know to what he was referring.
Apparently Will Bebeck wished to instruct me about his preferred techniques of editing, but that is only my guess. I did not see a need for such instruction. I edit many articles in Wikipedia, have brought a couple to Good Article status, and have rarely encountered any difficulties with other editors (one does seem to run a greater risk when editing articles about controversial subjects, where feelings are often intense and interested parties are attracted to the subject). I have published over 110 scholarly publications including several books, and several encyclopedia articles for commercial publishers in two countries. Bebeck did request my email address, and I politely declined to give it to him in a message on his talk page, not wishing to reveal my identity through my email address. He replied by calling me “Dude,” a term I find somewhat offensive and demeaning, and insisted I create a new email account. I have not responded to those statements.
It is my understanding that nobody who edits in Wikipedia is obliged to reveal their identity or to create a new email account just to converse with someone out of the public view. I prefer my communications to be open and public.
It is also my understanding that a user is allowed to delete unwanted communications from their own talk page, and is under no obligation to reply to every communication received. It is unclear why Ms. Sarita suggests this is somehow improper. Her allegation that her communications “have all been met with rudeness, hostility, sarcasm, and a refusal to compromise and communicate” is overblown. Compromise involves offers and counteroffers. There have been no attempts to “compromise” on edit content from Ms. Sarita or Terrillja, because neither of them has made any offer or counteroffer to any of my proposals. In one instance I received a proposal to mention Allison Watson by name in the article and omit all other information about her. They have mostly deleted my edits and suggested I make them on a different POV fork page created by Terrillja. Recently I provided a diff for an edit summary from Terrillja that will verify this statement. Here's another [14]
With regard to the diffs provided by Ms. Sarita:
1. I would like someone to explain to me in what manner the following edit summary is hostile: “You need to stop giving orders and start being more constructive.” The “orders” I referred to were demands that I stop editing on the Paul Watson page, and the request for being more constructive was in this context a request for a constructive counterproposal to my edits. None was offered.
2. I would like someone to explain to me in what manner the following edit summary is “unnecessary sarcastic:” “Are you revert warring here? Or exercising personal preferences for friend Paul?” In a previous comment, Ms. Sarita referred to Paul Watson in a familiar manner, saying what his wife does "has nothing to do with Paul." I am not on a first-name basis with Paul Watson, but in the manner she refers to him, Ms. Sarita suggests she is that familiar with him. I may be old fashioned, but I generally do not refer to persons I don’t personally know by only their first name, and I don’t believe I have done so in this matter. I don’t see how my question was uncivil.
3. Repeated deletion of edits by another editor of information that is critical of the subject of an article is "covering it up" in my thinking. Paul Watson and Allison Watson are married, they have identical interests in animal rights, they share a tendency for expressing their views through activist civil disobedience, and mentioning her criminal record concerning that civil disobedience regarding animal rights is directly relevant to a biography of Paul Watson. He certainly has displayed no criticism of his wife’s criminal record, and it has been discussed often on the home page of his Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as if he is proud of it. Terrillja and Ms. Sarita seem to think it is somehow inappropriate to mention this aspect of his family life in a biography. I disagree. Leaving it out would be like writing a biography of Bill Clinton without mentioning Hillary ran for president and was appointed Secretary of State. It’s interesting to any reader, timely, and relevant. In what manner is my suggestion Ms. Sarita is being overly protective of Paul Watson uncivil? My question was about the content, not about the editor.
4. Ms. Sarita suggests a personal familiarity with Paul Watson by repeatedly referring to him as “Paul.” I merely asked a question about whether she is really that closely acquainted with him. The question did not express criticism or disapproval. How is this uncivil?
Concerning diffs provided by Terrillja:
1. I never called him a jackass. What I said was: “I'm looking for an accepteble word, and some jackass keeps getting nasty about it.” I did not specifically identify the term with him; did not say anything approaching “you are a jackass.” My comment was not directed personally at him, but he apparently took it personally. Apparently a case of “if the shoe fits, wear it.” Also, he assumes the comment is pejorative. Yet the jackass is widely acknowledged as a positive emblem of the Democratic Party in the U.S., with historical roots in “kicking the (other) rascals out” of government. That fact makes my comment the equivalent of saying: “I'm looking for an accepteble word, and some Democrat keeps getting nasty about it.” Is that uncivil? If it is, then life in a democracy with elections must be entirely uncivil. Point: Someone would have to have very thin skin to interpret this comment as uncivil in the context of modern American society where I live.
2. & 3. Terrillja’s second and third diffs are the exchange between Will Bebeck and myself described above, so I won’t repeat it here. It is unclear to me what in this exchange might be considered uncivil by any reasonable person.
Terrillja’s inclusion of Ms. Sarita’s little rant with that exchange is curious unless its lobbying you, by including her self-serving expression of her opinion, or perhaps an attempt to “build a record” of that opinion for future use. But Ms. Sarita repeating mere allegations does not make them true. And his and her repeated statements that “No one "invited [you] to go edit something else" is patently false, as you can see from the following edit summary by Terillja (5:33, 9 Feb 2009): “Early and personal life: she has her own article now, if you want to add info on her, add it there.” Incidentally, Terrillja’s creation of a new article on Allison Watson for this purpose appears to violate Wikipedia policies prohibiting POV forks.
4. Terrillja’s fourth diff from Talk:Bricology (17:40 7 February 2009) is interesting partly because it suggests Terrillja has been following me around Wikipedia searching desperately for something to condemn me with. Bricology has not been part of the edit war on Paul Watson. It’s also interesting because I used a template and most of the language there that Terrillja says is evidence of my incivility is template language. The rest of the language there I paraphrased, almost verbatim, from the template immediately above it on Talk:Bricology, apparently written by 132 and quoting Wikipedia policies. If that language is evidence of a lack of civility, then the language of Wikipedia policies and 132 are also lacking in civility. Not believing that is the case, Terrillja is mistaken in his conclusion. And please note the language Terrillja presents as evidence of incivility actually speaks about the necessity of disagreeing with other editors in a respectful manner. The statement about remaining silent is merely an obvious statement of fact, not a recommendation.
Bottom line: This article is a biography, and biographies ordinarily contain information about parents and spouses, the moreso if any of them are notable. Brief discussion of Watson’s spouse, Allison Lance Watson is important to the article because she is a prominent animal rights activist, which is more notable than usual because Watson is also a notable animal rights activist. The fact his interest in this area is closely shared by his spouse will be of interest to any reader. Moreover, by their own admissions, Paul Watson and Allison Watson share strategies of direct action involving civil disobedience to advance animal rights. Paul Watson is proud of the fact he has been arrested many times for his actions, and the fact that Allison Watson has also been arrested for her actions in the same interest area is relevant to their relationship and to his biography. This will also be of interest to the reader because it indicates a certain consistency between Paul Watson’s controversial public life and his private life, suggesting he privately lives what he publicly espouses to believe. This is a factual indication about his character, which is appropriate for his biography, and the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. They cannot, if they are repeatedly deleted. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Amended slightly. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is way too much here to take in all at once, especially given that I have not been involved with this dispute up to now. I will look deeper when I have the time. I will note however, that your indication that the issue is "well beyond mediation" is not helpful. It does not seem reasonable that someone with your CV/experience could not reach a compromise over an article. I would urge you to make a good faith attempt at mediation. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I hope you understand that comment was made because I have published on the topic of mediation, and the circumstances here did not seem auspicious for a successful one. Only about 10% of mediation cases are successful in the "real world." I am making a good faith effort there, and I have been doing so all along. Successful mediation requires a willingness to bargain on both sides. If you examine the diffs provided by Ms. Sarita and Terrillja about Allison Watson, you will see I modified the text and shortened it repeatedly in an attempt to accomodate their concerns, but they repeatedly responded with a revert. Who was willing to compromise there? I am willing, but see no cause for optimism, and I have seen no proposal as yet. I'm waiting. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Amended slightly. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really don't know what to do...This guy that edit warred with PEEJAY (and myself, i just did not get blocked) continues, he switches IP like we change sweaters (somehow paraphrasing a Portuguese saying), writes no edit summaries and does not converse with anyone.
In one of the examples i provided, Oscar López Hernández he, obviously, upon seeing my edits, reverted again, no words added. I re-reverted his needless infobox enlargements and, in summary explained what i did to also accomodate his contributions, since i respect others' work: it consisted in "relocating" his inputs to the storyline's intro (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscar_L%C3%B3pez_Hern%C3%A1ndez&diff=271964022&oldid=271894400). Afterwards, i dropped a message in one of his endless IP talkpage (the one that operated in this article); although he operates solely in articles connected to a Spanish football club, he does so editing from Brazil, so i took a chance and wrote in his(supposedly)/my mother tongue (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:187.4.213.48).
However, i can see him clearly doing two things: Saying "talk to the hand" (and it is mightily possible he won't read this message, since he keeps changing IP), and reverting everything, even with my positive changes. What are your views here, my wiki-friend? Would really appreciate an input, besides what you told me previously. I remember one of your "pieces" of advice was to "wait for someone else to revert", it is just when i see something wrong, i just want to drop in and improve (only my views man, obviously the definition of "wrong" is not universal)...
I have blocked this IP for block evasion. If it continues, report it here, or at WP:AIV for a quicker response. It will make it easier for the responding admin if you mention the sockmaster. Kevin (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough, Kev. I revert infobox enlargement, try to find a solution that appeased both parts, write him a message just asking him to stop, nothing more and...he pops up a new anon IP and, VOILÁ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscar_L%C3%B3pez_Hern%C3%A1ndez&diff=271987792&oldid=271987661), it should have been re-re-re-reverted before i finish this message. Will immediately report this to WP/AIV, just tipping you also before i do so.
You left out the actual IP you wanted blocked. Theres a standard report format that should be used there, you can see it when you edit the page. Kevin (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, man. Well, in that case, i think it's an almost lost battle...I did not provide a specific IP because he has so many (51 i think, and the more to come, would not be a bit suprised if he tops 100 before March); we did try (you already blocked two), anyway, thank you for your assistance on this one, keep the wiki-faith!!
With the older IPs, is is highly unlikely that he? will use them again. They are usually allocated randomly from millions of IPs. The worst we can do by blocking is to force him to reset his router, which will get him a new IP. Kevin (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hi kevin, if you have any reason to chance this photo to a better place inside of this article ("...this image doesn't belong in the lead") so do it, but please don't revert without better arguments and go to discuss your meaning before! or have you in your store any photo for a better illustration [15]? Dontworry (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my edit summary said what was needed. I don't think the image fits within the lead section. Part of the reason for my revert was your misleading edit summary "better comment". I don't think I have a better image, and anyway I don't generally freely license my images. Kevin (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what we absolutely don't need, is any censorship from home-made "knights of pc", which can't distinguish between a fact (in this case: a joke with an unsuitable method - boy in that age and handgun on his head is absolute stupid - worldwide, not only in australia!) and the own subjective (low, bad whatever?) opinion about it! we can also gladly discuss about photographic (technical etc.) quality of this picture, but not about its facts. Dontworry (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps. if you prefer a picture from any important (investment)banker - they have more damaged, indeed - etc. you can take it in addition too! Dontworry (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! I just wanted to confirm can I be a fan of any other users in Wiki like you..
(Kush Soni 09:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsoni (talk • contribs)
The first version I deleted had he Justin Number is the Number 7,914,847. it was Discovered by Justin at Penn State University on November 12, 2008 as the content, tagged A7. I deleted as A7, which I think is not unreasonable, as I took the subject to be a person. The next 2 versions I deleted with much less scrutiny, given the almost identical content and author. So I don't quite agree with you, but I see your point. At least I know someone is watching. Kevin (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Todd Goldman
Hi Kevin, I saw your comments from yesterday and replaced all of my cited sources with those from actual news vs blogs. All the sources I used have been used on your site before (forbes, art business news, people magazine, msn news, broward news paper.) those are all real reliable sources, blogs aren't. I am just trying to add stuff in on my favorite artist and i know all this stuff and feel like it should all be put into his wiki so that other fans can learn it about him too...i'm going to revert it back and you can check but my sources are totally credible. Thank you :).
Hey Kevin, I just read both of those pages and re-read over my posts and it seems to fit perfectly into those girds. What am I missing here? I didn't revert it back but I don't understand why after I changed the verbage and came up with credible sources (not blogs) that you still delete it? I know I'm coming off as so stupid but I just want to get this right :)!
OK, I'll go through each source.
This and this are used to connect Todd Goldman and Aston Kutcher and support the statement They hit the latest gossip, entertainment and news stories. The first makes no mention of Goldman, the second makes no mention of Kutcher (possibly in the full version?) and neither supports the statement.
This is used to support the statement in 2008 opened his gallery, Pop-Factory in 2008 to critical acclaim, which it does not.
This photo is used to support Paris Hilton, an avid fan, helped him launch his gallery and purchased several paintings, which it does not.
The list of buyers is in the reference given, but the phrase to name but a few is not encyclopedic. See WP:WEASEL for info.
This image gallery is used to support Todd Goldman recently participated with Selena Gomez to raise money for Saint Jude Children's Hospital. Todd painted a mural on the wall and Selena helped the kids paint in the lines with colors to create a completed product, which it does not.
You cannot put more into the article than is covered by the reference you give. i think you should re-read those policies I linked earlier. Kevin (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU KEVIN! I Will go update them now and try again to make them right. I am so sorry that I keep bothering you but thank you so much for helping me and teach me. I really appreciate it. You have no idea. Thank you!--65.80.188.176 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just redid Todd's page and tried really hard to do everything you said. Will you please check it out for me and let me know if it works for you and if I did it correctly? Thank you!
I think you misunderstood - the ~~~~ are only for talk pages like this one. I see that your edit has already been reverted, but I'll see if it was OK (apart from the signatures). BTW, what is your connection to Jennazooje over at Commons? Kevin (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is no big deal, but the block reason you supplied here technically isn't correct for this case: 3RR doesn't apply to self-reverts, only to reverting others. The other half of the user's contribs were vandalism edits, though, so a block was in order. -kotra (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should look a bit harder at this - I blocked for the edit warring on the 17th, which was with another user, and was reported at WP:AN3. Not for the self-reverting going on at the moment. Kevin (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
regarding this football infobox vandal and his many, many IP, i have one question, illustrated by this situation:
In this article, the vandal has altered the player position. I don't know if you're into soccer and/or its predicaments and rules, but this player was not just a defensive midfielder, he was all-around, therefore midfielder would suffice perfectly. I don't dare alter it because i know he will alter it again, and again, and again.
This leads me to a question: you mentioned in your last reply to me that, blocking his many IP could not be a "smart move", since it would force him to reset and look for a new address...In that case, what are the options? I do honestly feel that there are vandals much worse than this one, but he is not being one bit cooperative, and i have been told by some folks (including admins) that this block-evading tactics of IP-hopping was not acceptable.
Hi Vasco, I am aware of the concept of football, but not much more. The best thing to do is report any new IP's, i.e. ones that have edited within the past few hours, either here or at WP:AIV. Then admins can deal with them on a case by case basis. You are right about block evading being unacceptable, but in many cases the IP user is probably not even aware that their IP keeps changing. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kev, in regard of your last input, and the fact that the users sometimes do not know their IP is changing, i'll just add this: although this person's first account, BRUNO P.DORI, was indef blocked, the second, BRUNINHO, is "free", having only suffered a 48-hour ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruninho). How come he chose not to return to the main account and edit anon (and no problem with doing so, i have an account and sometimes do not log in, but my IP is standard, but having more than 50 and an untouched account, and he has not touched it in 10 days http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruninho), that's odd to say the least...
Anyway, it's only an infobox vandal who sometimes needlessly enlarges infoboxes and does not care about others' work, but i guess it could be worse ;) Keep up the good work,
I issued a final warning, as did another admin, which gives the chance to alter the problematic behavior. Things seem to have quietened down a bit now. Kevin (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. I said it "is not the way to maintain friendly debate on an issue". I felt that was a politer way of telling you what kind of behaviour is expected. Obviously you disagree, or you wouldn't have done it again. Kevin (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it isnt possible for me to maintain a friendly debate with them. I can only manage a civil debate within Wiki guidelines. So can you tell me:
1) What Lyonscc thinks about if certain individuals is ultra left or not is ir-word. How else do u advise me to put it?
If you find that you cannot keep up a friendly debate, then disengage, or seek another form of dispute resolution. You didn't say that you did indeed care that the ultra-leftist group's position on the matter was important to you, you said that Lyonscc should not clutter up the page with his irrelevant opinion. There is a world of difference. One is a comment on the inclusion of a groups position, the other is a characterization of an editor. I did imply that you may be blocked for future incivility, however depending on the circumstances at the time I may seek another admin to assess the situation. There's no free pass there sorry. Kevin (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? Is saying 'your opinion about if certain individuals are ultra left or not is irrelevant because they are mentioned by reliable sources?' OK or not, IYO? Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that "I feel that this groups position is important to the article" then that is OK. If you say "don't clutter up the page with your irrelevant opinions" is not OK. Is that clear now? Kevin (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been accused by editors on that Talk Page of having a "radical agenda" but you didn't warn them about anything. How is that any better or worse than using wording like "your irrelevant opinions"? This smacks of a double-standard. Teledildonix314Talk ~ 4-1-106:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VS, i realize you are busy and don't have time to notice every tiny detail, especially on a Talk Page which is so incredibly long, but did you actually take a look on that page (and especially in the archives from the previous couple months) at how many times Lyonscc and other editors quite definitely referred to me with connotations of "radical gay agenda" and other such language intended to discredit my participation? Please, really look at the way i've been treated there, and tell me you don't see a pattern of dismissive and abusive comments toward me? Even if you discount that particular comment from Lyonscc, there are a zillion other examples on that page (and its archives) which are at least as blatant. How can you not describe the resulting scolding of me while ignoring others' treatment of me as a double-standard? The rules are (as usual) not being applied evenly. Teledildonix314Talk ~ 4-1-106:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tele - I can understand your frustration (and I am damn sure Kevin can also) but your latest comment concerning Lyonscc and then your biting Kevin with regards his warning relates to the latest comment by Lyonscc in which case he is not referring to you personally. I am picking you up on this belief by you only. I might also ask that you look at my history of interaction with you personally, to reiterate I couldn't care less about your sexual preference, your user name etc so you have no fear there; indeed I also do not care one iota if you are for or against religion; for or against Warren; nor the Saddleback Church, etc. Indeed look through my user contributions - see how I have blocked both sides of the debate, and only yesterday indefinitely banned one particular user of the Rick Warren group who can no longer be trusted by the community? Trust me - no matter how busy I am if you or any other editor of this group comes to me to complain about any other regular editor's lack of civility (and I'n not talking about dredging up something of a week ago but rather coming to me within a short period of less than 31 hours) then I will block that editor within a day or two (given my real life requirements). That's a standard promise to all - indeed point to this diff when you come to my talk page - and of course point to it again if you (or others) get caught in the same collateral damage.--VStalk07:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you, Virtual Steve, and thank you, Kevin, i took this over to my own talkpage. I followed the suggestion to ask for outside impartial observation, maybe that will improve my actions in your esteem. If you give me some compliments and validation, i will not let that go to my head, i will not get an inflated ego, i will not go off all cocky and let that infuse me with inappropriate feelings of righteousness. On the flipside: if you give me some complaints and criticisms, i will not scream and whine, i will not attack your criticisms, i will spend some time pondering carefully how to take your advice and incorporate it into my actions and everything i read and write around here.
If it's okay for me to mention: you have noticed the difference between my words in Article spaces versus my words in TalkPage spaces, right? I mean, you do see that i use extremely blunt and unapologetic language on the TalkPages, while using only Verifiable and Reliably Sourced words on the Article pages, right? So you know that what i interject in a discussion (my opinions, my rant about how i feel or my laughter at how something appears) is not at all what i put into the proper Encyclopedia (following both the spirit as well as the nitty-gritty policies of the Pillars of Principles), okay? Thank you very much Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-120:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kevin, I'm trying to hash out a consensus on the talk page of this article, and I'm wondering if you could full protect it while we do that? I know there has bee a LOT of edit warring over the last few days, and I think full protection is warranted, especially given the added BLP concerns. FirestormTalk06:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problems - I haven't edited the page at all and I have administratively dealt with both sides of the furore so I'm happy to remain a neutral third party. Stay sane! :) --VStalk07:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I look at my watchlist lately the words "gigantic shitstorm" come to mind. I'm going to stay away for a while I think. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Proposal 3 specifically removes all the problematic material you are concerned about re: the church's position as not relevant to a BLP on Warren. Collect (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that Prop 3 (this will shortly be confusing - we're up to 5 already) excludes this part, but I think that it does miss out important information. I may see if I can offer something today. Kevin (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP/church position wasn't the point I was making, just that the source does not fully support the statement re previous contents of the web site, but I think only a slight rewording or better source is required. This is a separate issue from relevance/inclusion altogether. Kevin (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed compromise (moving church stuff to the church article) using proposal 3 as modified as the basis seems to have some support from Firestorm. Two appear hopelessly against anything using the word "compromise" <g> Collect (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to agree though that there are reliable sources connecting the invocation controversy with the alterations to the church web site. I will not be either supporting or opposing any of the proposals, in an effort to remain neutral. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was not where it looked from my keyboard -- Firestorm proffered a compromise with the specific contentious material left out as long as some of the other church material could be moved to the church article. Unless, of course, I have misunderstood his posts. The consept is, to me, separatin of church and pastor. Collect (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Firestorm's posts, just that the 2 sources connect the invocation controversy with the web site alterations. There is merit in the argument that if reputable media outlets have made the connection we should do the same. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of like if the NRA web site says something, that it should be attributed specifically to the president of the NRA? There is merit in the principle that extraordinary claims require extreme care in WP as well. Collect (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that I am ignoring the careful use of reliable sources in BLPs, or that the alteration of the web site is an extraordinary claim? Regarding the attribution, we do not specifically connect Warren with the change, just state the facts (the website was changed near the time of the invocation) and let the reader make their own assumption on the level of control over the website that Warren has. Kevin (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) did you see my proposal which allows the statement that the site was changed but does not contain the charges as to what was on the earlier page as it can not reasonably be sourced to Warren? The goal is compromise as I recall. Collect (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to answer my question above? It does seem to me that you are avoiding answering anything directly. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claims asserting that a church website is directly relevant to a BLP are extraordinary, especially when the purported former content is used to ascribe a position to a person who is not described as having written the material. I think that is fairly clear. I gave a hypothetical example to make it even clearer. And I am most certainly not trying to avoid answering any questions at all. Collect (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that 2 news refs linking Warren to the web site are acceptable so long as we do not state that he is/was the author of the content of the web site. It doesn't seem an extraordinary claim to me. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kevin - I am hoping that Mike will see that we are all trying & I agree that if Lyonscc come to the mediation with others it would show he is more sincere about wanting a solution.--VStalk10:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you make 10 edits in a row, whether they are to different bits of an article or not, with no other editor editing in between, then that counts as a single revert. This is because it could have been done in a single edit. Look at this history, you see that Mike Doughney edited at 08:59 and 09:04 on Feb 12. This counts as 2 reverts because another editor edited in between, at 09:03. The 3 edits by EditorCasual between 04:21 and 04:23 on the 22nd count as a single revert because no-one else edited in between. Kevin (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats great Kevin thanks very much for the explanation. So do the edits have to be the same content then to count as one revert in 3RR. If I reverted content say from four different paragraphs would this also be breaking 3RR as you made 4 reverts. BigDuncTalk23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the content is. In my example EditorCasual altered 3 different sections of the article, which still counts as one revert. Kevin (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So as long as no one else edits the page it is one but if any other editor edits inbetween they all count and it doesn't matter if it is in different places on the article, is that right? BigDuncTalk23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not sure what happened here but it seems I re-created the page that you had already deleted. I didn't get a warning or anything. My intention was to revert the speedy tag added by the previous edit as the G7 is (as far as I know) not valid unless the page has actually been blanked by the original author. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to shed any tears over that obvious hoax, but I figured I'd let you know so you can nuke it or whatever is appropriate :) §FreeRangeFrog02:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original author blanked it, and someone else tagged it as G7. My deletion and your revert must have crossed paths somewhere. Kevin (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there KEVIN, VASCO here, hope all's fine by you
It continues to happen with this "contributor" (see here for past entries in your talkpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kevin/Archive_5#Edit_wars), he continues to needlessly enlarge football (soccer) infoboxes, without engaging in any "group activity".
First it was player position: For instance (and since you once said to me you were aware of the concept of soccer, but not much more, i'll elaborate here), a guy who played RIGHT BACK/LEFT BACK/CENTRE BACK is a versatile DEFENDER, there are no more positions in the defensive sector, so DEFENDER would be more than enough, then a sentence or two in the introduction to the player's versatility. Well there (example here, he didn't care...
Now it's (always in infoboxes, the only thing on his mind) birthplaces: see for instance Sergio Busquets, i think that SABADELL, SPAIN his more than enough, then we elaborate in intro (SABADELL, BARCELONA, CATALONIA), he reverts everything, without a word.
To wrap it up, i'll say that, although i strongly respect your opinion, i do believe it is vandalism (how much respect does someone who fails to put through one single edit summary or one talkpage bit deserves?), and he must be doing something wrong - main account blocked again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruninho#March_2009).
And now, you can check a message i sent him titled "Apologies" (in Portuguese), to prove i am still trying to make amends an work as a team (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruninho#Desculpas). Cheers, be safe KEVIN
Sorry to keep bothering you, but now it's a "good bother": BRUNINHO has finally "emerged", and responded to one of my messages (as i thought, with him operating from Brazil, his mothertongue is indeed mine, Portuguese). He was very polite and compelling, offering to work as a team, and saying he was not a vandal, just an inexperienced newbie (that still does not explaing the use of more than 50 IP, but now that the atmosphere is good, it would seem a bit idiotic from me to ask him that question. Also, as you once pointed out, it could be that his IP was changing without his knowledge (you told me, i believe you).
Anyway, case closed for now, i will stop the reports, have notified the due people, and engaged in 3, 4 messages of a good nature with BRUNINHO, just dropping the news.
Hi Kevin, here is musicloverisrael. Hope you are well. Thank you for your comments regarding "nimrod David Pfeffer". I added the citations to the article. Could you please explaine why you question the notability of "Nimrod David Pfeffer"? I deleted it for now, please add it again if you feel it is really not notable. But first please take a look at "Yaron Kohlberg", "Amir Katz" and "Dror Elimelech" and let me know how they are more notable.
Thanks!
I am very sorry to see you leave. Unless you are just taking a break from the tools? Please tell me it is the latter. Either way, best of luck in what ever you choose to do. Tiptoetytalk03:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too am sorry to read this information Kevin - personally I thought you were doing a great job. That said we are all entitled to take the road that best suits us at any given time. My best wishes to you on this part of your journey.--VStalk06:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have protected this page. Actually the page has been pretty quite since December. The only real "edit war" activity happens when one of two "Islamic" POV-warriors (never knew there was such a thing) shows up, sometimes stating they "agree" with each other[17], and then throw in the same old POV edits on this or related pages (sample of said edits[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]). Other editors have pretty much washed their hands of one of the editors[37] and the other seems to follow this type of editing practice as well[38]. These editors seem to be on a mission[39] so I am not sure where "dispute resolution" is going to go, we can lock the page till the cows come home but we are probably dealing with a behavioral matter. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that Jackal4 created a sockpuppet, which among other things attacked BaseballBugs immediately after he made the report to you, leading to you blocking Jackal4. See [41]--Epeefleche (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From your removal of {{retired}}, it seems you have returned to us. If this is true, let me be the first one to welcome you back. FirestormTalk21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could I please request that the article Mohammed Waheed Hassan be semi-protected. I along with other registered users have been updating the article but it is being continuously vandalised by anonymous users. This could be due to the current political tension in the Maldives. Therefore a temporary semi-protection may be necessary. User:A robustustalk19:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created thousands and thousands of articles, so I don't have time to watchlist them. The rationale for your proposed deletions of Rustam Akhmetov and Vugar Alakbarov is on the inconstructive side, really, but perhaps it is a new policy? Where can I find it? (By the way, don't worry, I will source the articles later today). Punkmorten (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24% of the articles you selected for your test/experiment were under the one project space (WP:WikiProject Football). I understand the importance of sourcing but some of these articles I've looked at that you've nominated, clearly do not meet the "uncontroversial candidate for deletion" guidelines relevant to WP:PROD. I'm not sure that I'm willing to spend hours filling in the blanks (most of which have no readily available English sources) for these biographies in order to prove your point. I believe you are acting in good faith, but it does seem close to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, especially when you are giving a Project a large amount of work in one hit in order to save articles. Camw (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't pick by project, I'm just starting at the beginning. There is no reason why BLPs should be unsourced, and where tagging them as such for several months has produced no result I think PROD is entirely reasonable. Kevin (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be nominating all articles at AfD where the PROD tag has been removed without sources being added? This seems reasonable since you were sure that all the pages nominated would be uncontroversial. Camw (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, yes. One of the reasons I nominated a block was to see what effect PROD has on getting sources added. If, at the end of the week most articles end up being sourced or deleted I will count the exercise successful, and continue. If not, and many end not sourced, I will have to consider some other action. My experience with taking these to AfD is that opinions will be "Keep - is notable", missing the point. In the end, there are up to 40000 articles that need to be sourced or deleted. I don't have the resources to source them all myself, so deletion is the next option. It could be worse - I could just be deleting them under WP:BLPSE. Kevin (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much luck you'd have finding an administrator willing to mass delete pages under BLPSE, but that's a separate issue anyway. I don't think that an experiment is the right use of PROD, but I'm going to remove the prod from the 3 or 4 remaining pages under the project indicated above that clearly indicate notability, I'll leave it on the remaining ones where it isn't clear and I will try to find some sources for them - otherwise there are too many to look into in one hit over 5 days. Camw (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing, but one person alone will make no difference to the backlog, or to get enough momentum to force a change. Kevin (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, couldn't see that you were an administrator but obviously I'm looking in the wrong place as you are. Camw (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I took a look at the article and I found she's a member of the pop group Sorachoco. Also she's had quite a few acting credits in Japanese films (i.e. more than what was shown on the English page WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
are you an admin? Would you kindly take care of the anon involved. It doesn't know how to negotiate or talk, it just reverts, and in doing so, breeches a long established practice. I refer to the content itself, what we do and don't include. It is even removed information which is sourced. Evlekis (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get what? If I knew how to make a report I'd have done it myself. I've been here three years and have submitted 8,000 edits and have never encountered live edit conflict before now. If they block me, all be it for two hours, I will not be back again. You say "it doesn't matter who is right", well nobody was disputing content here, just presentation. You cannot assume good faith when someone does not talk, and that someone is not I as you can see. I'm just annoyed that you couldn't see through this blatant disruptive user. As for me, I've devoted hours in trying to improve articles, and have never deleted other people's work, only modified it slightly. Evlekis (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see little difference on that article between your edits and the IP edits. Both are edit warring, and both are disruptive. Kevin (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had my edits been disruptive, someone else would have dealt with them years ago. If you take a closer examination at the examples you gave, you'll notice a major change in my position on Hakan Yakin and Murat Yakin from the earlier to the latter which resulted from discussion on a project page. There can be no comparison between me and the other user, except if your judgment is based on the last 12 or so edits between us which do not speak for three years of editing. I fail to see how reverting vandalism can be classed as "edit warring", does it matter how many times someone reverts an idiot who blanks the same page? The only difference is that this other user has engaged in sneaky vandalism which means that for non-affiliated persons, it is harder to identify, so unlike the page-blanker who will be blocked quickly, users like this get away with it for longer (because fewer people realise what they are doing), and in doing so, they drag down the good name of another user, which in this case is Evlekis. Evlekis (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And had I not resigned as an admin, I would deal with your edits right now. You received a warning for edit warring, and your next edits were to continue that edit war. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. See Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions for what the 3RR rule defines as vandalism - "obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language". The edits you reverted do not fit this description. Kevin (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they don't, but what are we? Robots or humans? Will the admins be beaurocratic just for the sake of following codified guidelines? Or will they show compassion and realise that editors are real people and not malfunctioning machines. Whilst we're on the subject, I'd be very interested to know what you - as an editor not admin - would have done if you took my position on the Fatos Bećiraj article. If you see the recent edits, just look at what I've had to deal with. I've provided a source and somebody still deletes it: you can't leave a message on its talkpage because the IP range changes every time. Evlekis (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop by this AFD debate. You said it was left unsourced for months with no one interested in providing sources. That's demonstrably false when the editor commenting above you made such efforts. If you still feel the article needs deletion, you should explain why the sources are unsuitable and why no others exist that could be found and added (WP:BEFORE) - Mgm|(talk)09:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've stuck the comment out. I think I'm too pissed off at the community here to contribute effectively at the moment. Kevin (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any good coming from that RfC, and will not be commenting there. It looks more like a witchhunt to me. Kevin (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smile!
Kevin, Xclamation point has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Welcome back, Kevin! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey I saw your protection log and you said you'd prefer to be talked to about the protection before anyone reverts it. I looked at the article and the concern you had about BLP is actually referenced with a credible source. Therefore, protection isn't really necessary because all it was was just deletion vandalism that removed the reference list. Also, I have a question for you about the protection length. While I agree that BLP concerns should be handled with the upmost attention, don't you think a year is a bit too much in terms of protection for this article? Afterall, this is the first time the article has been protected. If there was a BLP concern on this article, wouldn't it be better to just protect for about a week or two and then extend the protection if it started back up again? Let me know what you think. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk05:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been vandalised and/or had "alleged" inserted numerous times over the past year by many different IPs. I don't think that a 2 week protection would magically make these IPs go away. The bit I removed was {{fact}} tagged, hence my removal, but if it is sourced now that is better. See also the top of this page for my semi-protection criteria. Kevin (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the criteria that you referenced on Lar's page, but the criteria only refers to BLP concerns. There wasn't one to begin with because the statement was sourced prior to the protection, so I think protection isn't necessary. Also, the criteria that Lar posted is more or less his personal opinion of how BLP issues should be handled, not actual policy. In terms of the "'alleged"' issue, that all falls back on the removal of the reference. As for the vandalism, there's certainly the occasional vandal edit and page blanking, but I don't think there is enough recent vandalism to warrant protection. Icestorm815 • Talk05:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page criteria is that the article is a BLP, and that it has suffered IP vandalism of any sort. You are right, it is Lar's personal opinion on dealing with BLP issues. My opinions are more extreme in that I would prefer to semi-protect after 1 vandalism edit. I understand my opinion may be more radical than other editors, so I use a more liberal criteria as a concession to those editors. Kevin (talk) 05:41, 21 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. Enigmamsg23:14, 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]
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 • Talk05:13, 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* Enigmamsg05:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
