User talk:Kevin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Restore Article

"Richard Mammone"
(Deletion log); 02:46 . . Rdm2376 (talk | contribs) deleted "Richard Mammone" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: in part from http://business.rutgers.edu/default.aspx?id=1663) The information was sourced and a link to the "http://business.rutgers.edu/default.aspx?id=1663)" website was featured in the references section.
If the page cannot be restored as is, please indicate the nature of the desired changes and their respective section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcee44 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the "please"? I cannot restore this, as the entire article was a copyright violation. It would need to be completely re-written. Kevin (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How is the entire article a copyright violation? A very modest amount of content was similar to the website indicated above for which there may have possibly been a copyright infringement, how does that justify having to rewrite the entire entry? If the citation(s) itself requires more information, I will be happy to provide it. Otherwise, I ask the article be restored as soon as possible. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcee44 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Each of the websites listed as references have had entire sentences copied verbatim to the text, to various paragraphs in the article. Unfortunately this precludes me from restoring any of the article. Kevin (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Note re deletions

I am deleting articles that have been listed as unsourced for over 6 months, and have had no substantive edits for 6 months either. I am happy for any admin to restore these articles, so long as some kind of source is added such that the article complies with WP:BLP. Kevin (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The next batch of articles are here - User:Rdm2376/Unwatched. Any that receive attention before I get there will be left alone. Kevin (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You really should stop. This is inappropriate behavior. Just add references yourself. --The Cunctator (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP Deletions

Hi, I'm a bit concerned that you are deleting BLPs based on a criteria of "Unwatched and unsourced biography that has not been edited for at least 6 months". Has this process been discussed anywhere? I agree that these pages are an issue, but I'm also not sure that bypassing the usual deletion processes is the right way to handle them. Surely if the articles are in a state of disrepair then applying a Prod to them and allowing time for objection or improvement before deletion is reasonable. Camw (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If the PROD process required that articles would pass all aspects of WP:BLP (i.e. be sourced) then I would use that process. As it is, these articles have been tagged in excess of 6 months and have zero sources, and I feel that deletion is in keeping with the spirit of the BLP policy. Kevin (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed with a broader audience before you proceed. How many articles meet this deletion criteria out of interest please? Camw (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many qualify. At a guess I would say that at least 20000 meet the criteria I am using, but I don't have solid numbers at this stage. Do you think discussion with a wider audience will actually achieve a positive result? My experience says otherwise. Kevin (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for certain that it will achieve a positive result but I do believe that proceeding with deleting these article will generate discussion on one of the noticeboards at some point, so addressing it and letting the community have input before taking the action would hopefully generate less drama in the end. The BLP policy on deletion does say that if the article isn't policy compliant then it should be improved and rectified and only deleted if that is not possible. There is a sub project over at the Football Wikiproject that is attempting to reference relevant BLPs, of which there are still around 5000 at the moment - it is slow going as there are only a couple of people working on it but thousands of articles have already either been referenced or deleted, so it is possible for improvement to happen to these articles. Would a project with a focus of doing what the football project does on a wider scale be useful maybe? Camw (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly doubt it. My eventual aim is for all biographies to have at least a source for the main claim to notability. in the past I have tried PROD, but often it is removed without improvement; and tagging as unsourced, which is even less successful. There is a project around somewhere which has also achieved little. My hope is that this will actually achieve something in furtherance of this goal. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the other project but I can confirm the Football project is making progress and referencing a large number of articles to at least have a source for the main claim to notability - it would be a shame if the articles that are being working on are deleted before we get a chance to even check them out - most of the articles are stubs but there are actually some articles that are a decent start, they just need the referencing. Please consider stopping the deletion for now. Camw (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If I honestly though that there was a better way, I would. Kevin (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Will you not consider consulting the community for their thoughts at least? I know you don't think anything positive will come of it, but there will be discussion, either initiated by you or by somebody else and I feel it would be better if you could explain your reasoning and process from the outset rather than people upset about the deletions starting it. Camw (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you were following this more closely you would already know that that was attempted with mixed success. You may want to refer to the Arbcom case regarding this matter. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The comment you replied to was posted well before the arbcom case was raised. If you consult the community and don't get the result you want it shouldn't be a license to just do it anyway without further consultation as (in theory) the community shapes the project. Camw (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Hi Kevin. Just thought I'd inquire about these... "Unwatched and unsourced biography that has not been edited for at least 6 months"... Has there been a change to the deletion policy that I'm not aware of? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See above. To answer your question, no there has been no change that I am aware of. Kevin (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I too would suggest that this be discussed with more of the community before you proceed. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you are not the only one. Kevin (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And so....? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Matias

You deleted this article, for example. I just did a quick search and found that it can be easily sourced with articles in The Village Voice and Technology Review. It should not have been deleted, in my view. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously sourcing is preferable to deletion. But nobody is doing it, leaving this solution. Kevin (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You could be doing it if you wanted to. In the amount of time that even this brief discussion took place a number of articles could have been improved. Just because it is a big job doesn't make the easy way the right way. You say nobody is doing it, but I have mentioned to you that at least one Wikiproject there are people doing it, including many that I have personally referenced, or gone through the established procedure for deletion myself. If prod hasn't worked on an article I haven't found references for, then I've taken it to AfD and not a single one has survived AfD where references were not found - in my experience the current deletion system works. Camw (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The list I'm working from has over 60,000 articles on it. Your method just does not scale up to that. Would you find it less disruptive if I listed them all at AfD? Kevin (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The list the project I'm talking about reached 8000 at one point, it is now down to around 5000 (even with new articles being created all the time) with 3-4 editors involved. 60000 is not insurmountable with enough editors participating. Break it down into Biographies by country or profession and people interested in either could work on chunks of the list. I am aware your question about AfD is rhetorical in nature, but if you have followed WP:BEFORE (specifically point 9) on each article nominated then I have no problem with it. Camw (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop what you are doing. You just deleted Ion Atanasiu which was not even unsourced. A source was listed and the {{BLPunsourced}} tag was incorrect. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you are correct. I guess it's a good thing I didn't use a bot. Kevin (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What is your preference for the forum for a wider discussion of all this? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFARB? Less cynically, I have no preference. Kevin (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To the dramaboard, then.... WP:ANI. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lovely work

Keep at it. Your deletions are long overdue. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Gotta do something. Kevin (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? What's the good of "doing something" just for the sake of "doing something"? Surely it's more important to get it right than it is to simply ask people to tick the right box. Smears with sources are bad. Accurate articles without sources are not. What's the point of doing something just for the sake of doing something? I just don't get it. Guettarda (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the feedback on ANI indicates that this was a step beyond WP:BOLD - though the problem and good faith nature here are not in dispute.

Please stop and wait until the legitimacy of this approach are discussed in the usual *cough* *gak* place.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually quite encouraged by the discussion there. You've been here long enough to know that the "community" could not find consensus on what day of the week it is, let alone the legitimacy of something important like this. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see pretty strong support at the AN/I thread. Esp. among older users. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't. Perhaps tomorrow morning a rough consensus will emerge, but there's certainly enough dissent at the moment that "This exceeds community agreement on WP:BOLD" is true. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately I'm not overly concerned with the ANI discussion. I've stopped for now because I'm off to some RL happenings. Kevin (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get overly pushy, but I am personally concerned on my own, and sufficiently by a lack of uniform support on ANI, and I'd like to make sure you don't just start up again when RL happenings cease. I believe that would be abusive of the community consensus process.

As I said, a real consensus could emerge on ANI, etc. That's fine. But I really would strongly urge you not to proceed until some consensus emerges (there or elsewhere).

WP:BOLD and IAR cover what you've done; ignoring that there's a dispute over it and some significant objections now would be disruptive, going forwards. BRD applies - You were bold, it's been pushed back against, it's time to discuss.

Nothing disasterous will happen if you wait 2 days (or whatever) to see what happens with the ANI discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do keep in mind that some of the articles on that list are in fact referenced (sometimes sloppily) - just mis-tagged. From looking through some of them (and I reffed some too) it appears that from a quarter to half+ of them initially had no sources and got tagged, then someone added sources but didn't bother removing the tag. So IF you're gonna do this (and I'm necessarily agreeing with this course of action), at least be careful.radek (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Which list are you referring to? I'm being as careful as I can, hence my choosing not to use a bot or some semi-automated process. Kevin (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In trying to ref some of these BLPs I was working off of this one [1]. For example, the article on John Poindexter is clearly referenced although all the references aren't collected in a section called "references". Just pointing it out.radek (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for userfying or undeletion

After seeing the ANI complaint against your mass deletion of BLP articles, I noticed that you deleted Lee Hun Jai who is a very notable politician (served as Finance Minister of South Korea) to have been featured on NYT times many occasions.[2] Not to mention about Korean sources, you deleted it without checking, so I request you to undelete the article or at least userfy it into my usage page. Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to undelete, so long as the sources are added. Kevin (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just... slow down. I've undeleted a batch already - put sources in half, and added the others to my personal watchlist (so I can do them in the morning). DS (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should post my working list and give you all 30 minutes head start. Whatever works, you know? Kevin (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that DS not undelete any that they are not prepared to source that very instant . As any article thus undeleted is still a problem and undeletion without it being immediately fixed is a BLP policy violation. DS surely has the best of intentions but may be hit by a bus tonite. In which case those articles will never get sourced and we're back to square one. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Very few buses pass through my apartment. DS (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Point stands. Please do not undelete any that you do not immediately fix or userify, or they are subject to redeletion. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar time

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For encouraging change in the plague that is unsourced BLP articles on Wikipedia, I award you this barnstar! JBsupreme (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		The BLP Barnstar
		Oh godz YES!! I never give out barnstars, but you totally earn this one for taking the initiative in dealing with a very serious BLP problem indeed. Truly, you have cojones de latón, sir! - Alison ❤ 08:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Pug Barnstar
		BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!! I was discussing your noble actions with my wife over a continental breakfast and we both agreed that this is a thoroughly, jolly good, and positive action. Keep up the good work and illegitimi non carborundum... Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For doing the right thing, knowing it would be unpopular with the legions of the irresponsible. Bali ultimate (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		You've helped clean one of the dirtiest parts of the wiki. Well done. Way to step up and take initiative. Beats talk talk any day. ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

		Home-Made Barnstar
		Hell yes! Fantastic work!! The reaction was to be expected—typical cluelessness and irresponsibility—but you pushed on anyway to do the right thing. Good for you! You've made us damn proud! Lara 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A more appropriate response IMHO:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternative with same effect

A proposal I made on ANI is being discussed there and you might want to weigh in if you're so inclined, though the conversation might well end up here (where it's already been copied). I think this gets at the problem you are (thankfully) trying to address but will probably elicit less objections, allow more people to help out, and ultimately still get the job done. If we can't get consensus for something along these lines then we've got a problem, but I think it's a good route that could gain consensus without too much difficulty. Regardless, thanks for kicking the BLP can a bit further down the road. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

This is an abuse of your admin tools. You're not making any efforts at sourcing. Cleaning up this backlog is hard work that involves a lot of effort in finding sources and making edits, not just clicking the delete button. This kind of unilateral action is the sort of thing that chases editors away from Wikipedia. You are not Judge Dredd. Fences&Windows 11:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fences, I think you need to take a step back from the wiki bureaucracy for a minute and think about what would really cause people to leave Wikipedia: unilateral deletions or libelous information that just lost someone their job. The Wikipedia community encompasses a few hundred hard-core people, and really we're the only ones who care about the method of deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, if we took a stance to support only sourced BLP articles on Wikipedia, it might cause readers to start taking us seriously for a change. Our image is in the toilet, and for good reason. JBsupreme (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If more people spent time adding sources instead of just deleting articles, we could start to clear the backlog. How many people participating in these debates have sourced and expanded any of these unsourced BLPs? If we pledged to do one a day, just 100 of us could clear half the backlog in a year. Do we have 100 editors who care enough about preserving information but also about verifiability to do this, or are a handful of admins instead going to act by fiat and alienate editors? What about all the people who contributed the content that is being binned without any attention being paid to whether it can be retained and improved, and all the readers who will never get a voice in these discussions? Wikipedia's reputation is in the gutter due to this kind of zealous deletionism.[3] Please stop any out-of-process deletions and instead propose a new speedy deletion criteria if you really feel that prod and AfD aren't enough to deal with problematic articles. What you're doing is the nuclear option: can we discuss other ways of dealing with the problem of unsourced BLPs being created, like semi-protecting them or feeding articles from non-confirmed editors through AFC? An admin going on a rampage like this in any other area would rightly be desysopped faster than you could say 'I deleted the mainpage'. Fences&Windows 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Fences on this one. We're discussing several proposals on how to work this out. Your deletions had their intended effect. Continuing them while we're discussing a transparent method of clearing out the backlog is plain disruptive. BLPs are a huge problem on Wikipedia, but just because you don't feel like doing a Google search doesn't mean that you may delete easily-sourceable articles at will. Please, cease until one of the more transparent proposals gains consensus. If they've gone for 6 months without being noticed or edited by anybody, a few more days won't hurt. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a fallacious argument. Even one day more could be the difference between nothing bad and something bad happening. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you patrolling the categories for PROD and/or unreferenced BLPs, or even building a taskforce to fix them. It would probably be more beneficial than the perennial race to be first to A7 tag every bit of vanity at newpages. What Rdm2376 is doing is precisely right: with BLPs we have an unambiguous policy requiring sourcing, reinforced by a special policy particularly requiring sourcing for that kind of article. Yes, people keep on creating unreferenced biographies, and that is a problem. Find them, educate them. Fix the articles. And let the process of housekeeping carry on for the ones that are not compliant with core policy, because if the article creator doesn't care, why should we?. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of stopping. That's what we have been doing, and it achieves nothing. I won;t sit idly by while we let the problem grow even larger. Kevin (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Since you will not respond to polite requests I will block you indefinitely if you do not stop carrying out large scale out of process deletions without first gaining community consensus.©Geni 22:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So you advocate doing nothing? Kevin (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. My BLP Task Force suggestions can be found over on meta for those who care about such things. However I advocate remembering what an admin is. Adminship is granted to perform various janitorial functions within limits set by the community. If you want to change policy you do so in your role as an editor not in your role as an admin.©Geni 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer not to continue with this threat hanging over me, but I am unwilling to continue to sit idly by. As noted above I am being selective so I do not consider that I am blindly mass deleting articles in any case. Of course you are free to take whatever action you see fit. Kevin (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 10 minutes. Please pursue policy changes through more acceptable channels.©Geni 23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Very petty and very punitive. Congrats on deteriorating the situation even more, Geni. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

An acceptable channel would be one that produces a result, and I haven't found one yet. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have continued with your deletions. I have blocked you for 3 hours. There are a number of ongoing debates that appear to have a chance of makeing some changes in this area. When your block expires I urge you to join them but wikipedia cannot have admins attempting to introduce policy by fait.©Geni 00:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to join a pointless debate that we have had 10 times before. The community, for want of a better word, is unable to reach consensus on anything important, making more direct action appropriate. I see enough support from well respected editors to continue what I am doing, which is exactly what I will do in 3 hours, unless one of those debates miraculously gets somewhere. If you cannot accept my actions, then I urge you to do something about it. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are tilting at windmills here Kevin. There is not consensus for you to continue on this course, and if you persist there will be some admin who blocks you, which would rather short circuit your project. I don't think there are going to be enough admins to take up the gauntlet and delete 50,000+ BLPs, and even if there were they would also end up blocked and this would end up in an unbelievably messy ArbCom case that would put a grinding halt to efforts to deal with unsourced BLPs. Your actions have already served a useful purpose, which is to stir up a major conversation that is indeed different from some of the debates that have happened before, and which still has a good chance of coming up with a solution whereby we begin to steadily work through the unreferenced BLP category in full. I understand and sympathize with your frustration and your motivation, but I think continuing to delete articles would be counterproductive to your end goal. Let the discussion at WT:PROD continue for awhile, and if nothing really comes of that then other possibilities would have to be considered. Turning oneself into a martyr (WP:MARTYR should really be an essay) can be a good thing (and the cause here is certainly just), but strategically I do no think it wise at this time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I'd rather lose while I'm at least trying to do something. I proposed a similar deletion scheme a few months back, which in common with all the other discussions failed to reach a consensus. If the community at large is unable to deal responsibly with a problem because they cannot form a consensus, then actions such as mine are all that is left. Kevin (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

These deletions are completely within policy. Unsourced material from BLPs may be removed. If the entire BLP is unsourced and unwatched, the entire BLP may be removed, and in fact should be. It is you, Geni, who is acting outside policy. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Geni, your block is outside of policy. Your reblock is even more egregiously so. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Good block. Rd232 ^talk 00:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully support Geni's block and will reimpose it if there are further deletions after it expires. [[[WP:BLP]] says that Unsourced contentious material from BLPs may be removed. Deletion of non-contentious BLPs for lack of souring is not current policy, and judging by the discussion on WT:CSD deleting them on sight with with no process has a strong consensus against it. That makes such deletions, after warnings, disruption. Some Prod-based process may gain consensus, but even that is far from a SNOW at this point. You have successfully gotten a significant community discussion started, please don't continue with unilateral deletions against consensus. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

After all this time, I see actions as more useful that words. I'm sorry you disagree. Kevin (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DES - the actions created a debate, which may lead to something, but further such actions would at this time be pre-empting that debate. (Which is why blocking was and is warranted.) Rd232 ^talk 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The block of this fellow contributor was inappropriate and consensus to do so was severely lacking. How sad. JBsupreme (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry I unblocked. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletions within policy? Please. WP:BLP: Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard. The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others [...] (emphasis mine). --Cyclopia^talk 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if "The community, for want of a better word, is unable to reach consensus on anything important", then "making more direct action" is exactly the opposite of "appropriate". Consensus should be fundamental on anything important. If there isn't, the only appropriate course of action is avoiding to push it roguely. --Cyclopia^talk 00:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:JIMBOSAID notwithstanding, I find this relevant:

“ I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of
random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be
tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed,
aggressively, unless it can be sourced.   — Jimmy Wales

”

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

We need take a firmer stance when it comes to BLP articles. JBsupreme (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that your quote says unless it can be sourced., not unless it is sourced. If something is impossible to source, I agree with removal. If something hasn't simply been sourced, one should look if it's possible to source it. --Cyclopia^talk 00:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between the possibility of something being fixed and somebody actually fixing it. That's what you are missing - anybody could fix this, but nobody ever has. For years. Kevin (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're debating semantics at this point, as the articles which are currently being deleted have not been sourced for over 2+ years. No one is saying these articles cannot be re-written from reliable sources at a later date, but good riddance. JBsupreme (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme, you left out the relevant part of Jimbo's quote "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.". The quote is being used in WP:BLP to support the removal of unsourced contentious material. WP:BLP does not say that you should remove all unsourced material from BLPs, only the contentious unsourced material (or contentious and poorly sourced).

If Rdm2376 has deleted unsourced BLPs that had uncontentious material then he wasn't following BLP. BLP only empowered him to delete articles that were in its enterity contentious unsourced or poorly sourced material. Otherwise he should have invoked some of the speedy deletion criteria. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the message subject was "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", not on all information. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you chose mass deletion rather than mass incubation? Rd232 ^talk 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mostly because there are articles that have been there for months without being fixed, so all it would do is move the problem elsewhere. Kevin (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

hardly. "the problem" is long-term unreferenced BLPs as live articles, accessible by search engines. In the incubator, articles are not in mainspace, and are noindexed. So the move is not a moving of the problem, it's a solution. Rd232 ^talk 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I might agree if there were some time limit, but not a a place to dump the problem forever. Kevin (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of people would find a time limit necessary or at least agreeable, also I think that's how the incubator, for the most part, works now. I would say setting a limit of a couple of months is reasonable, though the exact time is not so important. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The current guideline for the incubator is a month for articles to be fixed. With mass incubation, that would have to be raised appropriately. (Also, failing to see how it's really a problem for them to be in the incubator indefinitely, other than making the incubator too hard to manage.) Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So I can go and WP:CSD#G6 all of the older ones? Why do I think that might case more drama? Kevin (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Listen to yourself: you're starting to sound like a troll. You didn't need CSD backing for mass deletion, so why would you bring it up for mass incubation? Because incubation can be undone by anyone, not just admins is one reason that springs to mind. In which case, be honest and say so. Rd232 ^talk 09:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop! If these articles need improvement, then flag them. But to mass delete the work of many people, trashing their efforts, without even reading the articles, without any consensus or consideration of the actual article text, because you are the self-appointed angel of death, seems inappropriate to me, in the extreme. It is a legitimate issue of what should be done with these articles, but to take it on yourself to be judge, jury and executioner, seems counter to the idea of a "community" effort. --Mdukas (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are late arriving? ARBCOM have already dealt with my deletions, and now I'm waiting to see if the RFC comes to any consensus. Kevin (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please restore these articles

I looked through your recent mass deletions, and I found quite a few that are very easily sourceable:

• Stephen Langdon - former Canadian Member of Parliament [4]
• Kersten Alm - Cabinet of the Åland Islands [5]
• Pedro Lastra - Chilean poet [6]
• Martyn Jacques - musician [7]
• Donald Cole (anthropologist) - academic [8]
• Naseer al-Chaderchi - notable Iraqi politician [9]
• Fillie Lyckow - Swedish actress [10]
• Robert C. Kolodny - sexologist [11]
• Cecilia Torudd - Swedish cartoonist [12]
• Bounleut Saycocie [13]
• John Manley (archaeologist) [14]

As you can see, nearly all of the articles you mass deleted were easily sourceable. The above took me 20 minutes to search in total, which is roughly the same amount of time it took you to delete them. See how deleting articles like these without even the most cursory checks for sources can harm the encyclopedia? Looking in Google's cache, none of these articles contained contentious material. I request that all of these be restored. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to userify any of these for you, and you can source them and move them back. Any that aren't sourced 12 hours after you get them, I'll delete again. Let me know if that's of interest. (and don't ask for more at once than you can handle easily...) ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please restore Talk:Tolu Ajayi as the article is coming along nicely now. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Harriet Lindeman, Minister in the government of Åland. [15] [16]
• Runar Karlsson, also minister. [17] [18]

--Apoc2400 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 12 hours for continuing to delete non-contentious biography articles out-of-process, and without any supporting consensus. You have been asked by several respected editors to stop these non-policy supported deletions. WP:BLP specifically refers to deleting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious articles as a last resort. So far as I can tell you are making no attempt to source these, so it is your first resort. You are deleting articles that have no faintly contentious content, so you are again not supported by the bLP policy. And the discussion at WT:CSD#Add new criteria to CSD has roundly rejected the idea of speedy deletions for such articles (7 to 20 at present). Your attention has previously been drawn to this discussion as evidence of the lack of any consensus -- indeed a consensus against -- your current actions, which amount to speedy deletion without the formality of passing as CSD first. DES ^(talk) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In light of the ArbCom case, i have asked them to enjoin you from such deletions until the matter is resolved. I have unblocked, asking you at this point to strongly consider delaying any further deletions until the community consensus over such deletions can be better determined, and policy changes if any are made. I will not, however, re-block even if you should engage in further deletions, but I reserve the right to undelete and source in place any such articles. I do still consider your contiued deletions disruptive and harmful to the project. I know that you disagree. DES ^(talk) 03:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Reserve the right to . . . source" an article? Hardly a controversy! Uncontroversial sourced BLPs are subject to summary deletion only when there's no claim of notability, an objection that can usually be countered by a single editor, resulting in an AfD. Source away! ^Bongo_matic 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm fully aware of your opinions on the matter. As I state at the top of this page, I am perfectly happy for articles to be restored, so long as sources are added. Kevin (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I got a good chuckle out of that too. There are thousands, THOUSANDS of unsourced BLP articles and they are being created at a rate that actual editors who give a damn cannot keep up. JBsupreme (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, reserve the right to undelete and source, without feeling the need to discuss the undeletion here first, since the results of that discusssion ar already clear. 03:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP_deletions. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to note for the sake of accuracy that between Coffee's unblock and the 12 hour block that I continued my rampage unabated. Kevin (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done so, thanks for the suggestion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I do wonder, what attention do you pay to community consensus? --Apoc2400 (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• "There's a community? Kevin (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The community that thinks "a lot of unsourced articles are perfectly useful", to use Apoc2400's extremely absurd choice of words, apparently. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I responded to Ikip's statement at BLP_deletions [19]; hope you'll agree it's an accurate account Little grape (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fan Club

Is there any way I can start a Kevin Fan Club or something like that on Wikipedia where users can sign up? You're my hero! ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

IF there any any I can start a Kevin Hate club? What fookin' drama!--Milowent (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You could do that pretty much anywhere but here. Kevin (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Won't start it :) But really, well done. A historic change in the way BLPs are handled Mr.Anderson (aka, Neo of Matrix) :) Best of luck ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted unsourced BLPs

I wanted to start an unsourced BLP drive to actually source these articles, but now that ArbCom has ruled that all 50,000 unsourced BLPs can be mass deleted this seems a bit moot, as it is much quicker to hit the delete button than find sources - any effort at sourcing would be quickly overtaken by the deletions. Without knowing who is doing mass deletion there's no way to record which unsourced BLPs have been deleted, unless I trawl the whole deletion log. Can we record the list of titles somewhere so those of us who wish to find sources and retain some of this content can work on them? Fences&Windows 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Second that, and if you're unwilling to log it somewhere, then don't mass delete. Random admins deleting articles at random is not the way to solve the problem of unsourced BLPs, particularly when there are community discussions that will likely lead to a more organized process. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd go further, and say that in view of the multiple efforts to get something organised, there's no excuse for pre-empting that; and Arbcom's ruling may be ambiguous, but I hope they would not smile on any very precipitate resumption of mass deletion. At least a week or two for the RFC etc to potentially go somewhere is a minimum to be reasonable. Rd232 ^talk 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing ambiguous about the ArbCom motion. That people are probing the cracks and corners of it looking for wiggle room does not introduce ambiguity into a very simple "the deletions were right" finding. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But I'm sure Kevin would agree that having a handful of admins delete articles somewhat at random is not the best way to clean up the unsourced BLP problem—it's not a question of being "right" so much as being effective. Right now there has been a change made to WP:PROD to make it verboten to remove prods on unsourced BLPs unless sources are added, and support for this is very strong at an RfC. An alternative process is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs. Given the events of the last couple of days and the ArbCom motion, we are going to have a formal process for cleaning out the unreferenced BLP category. It will likely have relative consensus and will be able to proceed quickly. Given that, it is best to stop admin deletions now, regardless of what the Arbs said about them. The best solution is one that: A) Deals with the problem quickly; B) Has the most support from editors (which helps with the get-it-done-quick factor). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For a historic context > Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Ruling_(BLP_Deletions) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It will take some time to read through all of the proposals that have been raised here. So long as a process is accepted that results in these articles being deleted or sourced within a short period of time then there is no need for me to continue. As for the list of what I deleted, every article was on the list at User:Rdm2376/Unwatched. It looks like most have been restored, some with particularly poor sources. Kevin (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(To people who are looking for lists of deleted BLP pages) Special:Log/delete is always useful. If you're looking for deletions made by a specific admin, you could use Special:Log/delete/Rdm2376 (as an example). Killiondude (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored with no sources, or poorly sourced:

• Hidemasa Koizumi
• Watari Kakei
• Tetsuyasu Mitani
• Masanori Matsuyama
• Atsushi Takahashi
• Hitoshi Shiozawa
• Orlando A. Naranjo
• Thierry Pauwels
• Kiichiro Hurukawa

I've found a source for Hurukawa and only Koizumi is an issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Most are sourced to http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/MPDiscsAlpha.html which has surname and initial only. I don't see that as a suitable source for a bio. Kevin (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. To me, I'd call it gaming if you put in sources that aren't reliable just to keep articles alive. Of course, now that means removing those sources, which will cause a fight at each one of them and continue the arguments at the next stage. Not my interest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll just PROD them and see what happens. Kevin (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're also interested, Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2009 is quite a bit but I've already found one hidden BLP. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

110,000 articles in there? That's almost unbelievable. Kevin (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just don't be taking BLP policy to all unsourced articles. I'm not sure we'd have much left around here. ;) Three missed unsourced BLPs so far. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

shameless canvassing of TPS

This seems to be a hotspot for those interested in the current BLP controversy, so I figured i'd post here. Kevin, if you don't want the notice here, feel free to blank it. Anyway, to correct the misconception that nobody is interested in sourcing these articles, I have created a list for people to sign, located at User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing. If you can commit to sourcing at least 500 of the problematic BLPs over the coming weeks and months, please sign up. By doing so, you may also receive notices about BLP reform-related proposals, task forces, etc. if people choose to use the list.

Thanks, The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've no objection to the notice, or to the sourcing. The more people sourcing, the less I'll have to delete out of process (only joking, sort of) in the long run. Please, just make the sourcing better than the ones listed just above this section. Kevin (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thought this might help in the between... Category:Unsourced BLP Deletionist Wikipedians ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 15:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And for the sake of NPOV, Category:Unsourced_BLP_Rescuers ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point in those categories, to be honest. You don't have to be a "deletionist" to believe that certain pages should be deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

True Julian. One doesn't have to be a deletionist to think like that. But for those who believe they are, the category exists :) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A request inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hyland

Please either userfy to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/James Hyland or incubate at Wikipedia:Article Incubator//James Hyland. The asertions of notability and the hints toward proper sourcing being available [20] with a truely diligent search were indicative that this one could have been fixed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Kevin (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was kinda hoping the original discussion might have had more than three editors disussing.... but what with the furor elsewhere.... Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a furor? Kevin (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... I did hear rumblings in the distance, but did not quite see pitchforks and torches. I'll be sure to invite you in for a look-see after I do some work on it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No title

Listen dude, I don't care about any of these guide lines and rules. Why are you changing my stuff back??

Better get with the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.207.173 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note re deletions

I am deleting articles that have been listed as unsourced for over 6 months, and have had no substantive edits for 6 months either. I am happy for any admin to restore these articles, so long as some kind of source is added such that the article complies with WP:BLP. Kevin (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The next batch of articles are here - User:Kevin/Unwatched. Any that receive attention before I get there will be left alone. Kevin (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You're knocking out articles about Vice-Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc., foreigners of course. Why can't they be left till someone gets around to dealing with them in good time, as long as there's nothing contentious about the entry? Or why can't you do something positive yourself rather than divert people who think they'd be better kept from other activity? Opbeith (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify the muddled wording - "who think they'd be better involved in other activity" Opbeith (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Foreigners? Do you have any idea where I'm from? Do you have nothing better to do than accuse others of racism? Kevin (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of racism, simply of promoting ignorance. Opbeith (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Clive King

I've seen your note on the content and references I added earlier. He's important, so I'll make him a priority to get sorted out. Please remove him from your list.--Plad2 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, he's in the Children's Literature Project and we are getting around to fixing, sorting or (presumably) deleting our unreferenced BLPs. May I suggest that you refrain from adding any more BLPs from this project to this or future lists?--Plad2 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about the list - none will be deleted by me at least without checking. There's quite a few that have had references added recently. Kevin (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lynda Stipe

I found some articles - reviews mostly - with her name as part of her band. I think it should be merged into Oh OK, and redirected, instead of an outright deletion, as students may actually look for information on her. Bearian (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds OK. I would have redirected myself if I knew which band was the best redirect target. Kevin (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sai Baba of Shirdi link issue

Dear Kevin, since you were involved in a former discussion on Kevin R. D. Shepherd [21] I was hoping you could provide me with direction whether my complaint about a Kevin R. D. Shepherd link could be considered inappropriate or whether there is justification for the link to remain. My explanations are provided on the Sai Baba of Shirdi talk page. Thank you for any advice you can offer. WikiUserTalk 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User name

Is your former usenamn User:Rdm2376 ? --78.70.221.227 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I changed back after some RL issues with outing were resolved. Kevin (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the sprot on Beth Stern. Enough is enough already. Cheers Tvoz/talk 06:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

My IRC nick is kevin_g. Kevin (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dominik Trojan deletion

Hi, could you please userfy a copy of this article you have recently deleted? If the only remaining issue is to add sufficient reviews of his works (in particular for the film he has directed), then this seems easy to rectify. I was expecting the AfD would appear to be "inconclusive" rather than "delete" and a simple tagging for improvement would address any need for more reviews to meet ARTIST, considering the repeated arguments of "fails PORNBIO" when PORNBIO does not apply to film directors.

If I am to sufficiently improve the article, it would be helpful if you could explain why interviews with him in QX Magazine, another by RAD Video and a review of one of his performances in QX Magazine, are not currently sufficient to address ARTIST #3 considering that these organizations are independent of him or his publishing house. Cheers Ash (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied it at User:Ash/Dominik Trojan. I'll look at your question in a bit. Kevin (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Anja Juliette Laval speedy deletion

Kevin – what the hell, dude?

You speedy deleted this page without so much as an AFD. It is not an "attack page", but simply biographical info about an award-winning porn performer who appeared under that name. This is uncalled for and I would like you to reverse it. The merits of the case for deletion can be reasonably discussed through an AFD. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because it is both negative in tone and unsourced. Like it or not, being a porn star is viewed negatively by much of western society, and the article was not reliable sourced. Do you have a reliable source for the article? I would be much happier restoring it if I know it will be sourced shortly. Kevin (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Laval at IMDb shows a solid acting portfolio. I recommend de-PRODding and moving the discussion to AfD to give a chance of improvement. Your comment presuming that being labelled a "porn star" is automatically defamatory is an unnecessary assumption based on your own prejudices rather than consensus - celebrities reveal far, far worse on "Big Brother". In future please let such PRODs run for the full 7 days, then there can be no post-delete dispute.

I note that this was another occasion where you deleted an article within 24 hours of the PROD being raised. I hope you are having second thoughts about doing this for articles that are not the no-brainer-vandalism-type. If you persist with these types of early deletion (the alerts show up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion but may take 24 hours or more to do so) I shall have to assume your deletes demonstrate a deliberate pattern. Ash (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You would do well to assume a lot less about my prejudices as you perceive them. If you do not understand how being mislabelled as a porn star could hsave a negative impact on a person, then you need to open your eyes. Kevin (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as you claim to be following policy rather than your own prejudices, then please point to the current consensus that supports speedly deletion (which consequently allows no other editor time to improve the article) specifically for actors appearing in pornography rather than letting PRODs run for the conventional 7-days. You may find the WP:PORN project helpful. Ash (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, being labelled as a porn star could be harmful to an individual if they are in fact not a porn star. This should be fairly obvious to anyone. When there is the potential for harm, and no sources, deletion is a reasonable course of action. Of course, if a source is then provided the article can be undeleted. This has absolutely nothing to do with any prejudice on my part, and is firmly supported by the policy on biographies of living persons. Kevin (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I note you have not pointed out a Wikipedia consensus that supports your viewpoint which is apparently not based on prejudices but on a "fairly obvious to anyone" rationale. As the deleting admin deciding to skip the normal 7-days and not allowing the article any chance of improvement, you must take responsibility for checking your assumptions. For example a quick check on IMDB as I have done above, to see if this is a well-known porn star and there is every reason to expect reliable sources to be added within the 7-day period (as Iamcuriousblue pointed out above). Based on your statements here, I believe that you will continue deleting any weakly sourced pornography articles on principle shortly after they are PRODded rather than, say, raising an AfD. Such behaviour is not based on consensus but on what you feel is obvious. Is that a fair summary of your position? (I will probably not be able to reply for 24 hours, so you have plenty of time to consider the issue.) Ash (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that anything useful can come from continuing this discussion. We do not agree, and probably never will. Kevin (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedying my prods, and a useful tool

Hey there Kevin. I noticed that you had speedily deleted a couple of articles that I had prodded with what is essentially CSD G10. I'm perfectly fine with that, though I don't think there is too much harm allowing people to try to save these for another week. But if you're interested in checking out some of the articles I tagged, here is a useful list. I found these articles by checking the intersection between Category:All unreferenced BLPs and various other categories, one at a time. I thought that you might want to give that a try. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's a better tool than the one I had been using. You're probably right though, it might be easier all round to leave them prodded. Kevin (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Randy Mixer Speedy Delete, too Speedy?

Hi,

The original article was pretty much a stub, unfortunately it was not flagged up on enough project alert lists for someone to add a few sources. As there is no doubt that the GEVA was won in 1992 ("Gay Erotic Video Awards 1992". Adam Gay Video Directory. 1993.) and this actor (also performing as Cody Feelgoode and Paul Alexander) is credited with over 70 titles () with most of his work being between 1992-4. So he passes PORNBIO and is "historically" interesting enough to be worth an article. In this case the PROD was on a faulty premise, as this was not a "negative biography" it just needed sources.

Perhaps you would like to un-delete so I can add these sources and reformat the article, particularly as you chose to delete within 24 hours of the PROD being added rather than waiting until 2010-02-23 as would be the normal procedure to allow folks time to improve the article? Ash (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but not till tomorrow. Admin actions and iPhones don't go well together. While enlightened people like us know that being a porn star is not a negative thing, many others hold more conservative views, hence my being extra careful with this unsourced bio. Kevin (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard C. Longworth

Well, you got rid of Richard C. Longworth despite sourcing and substantive additions - tell me he's not a notable journalist. Fortunately I'm not that bothered to see a journalist who copyrights his own CV go. Now you've got people like the Vice-President of Burundi on that list. But who's going to be bothered to check out a monstrous list like that to see what might be worth helping improve. It's a sort of moral blackmail. If you want to scrap what people don't manage to get to look at, go on. It all helps persuade people who have trouble abandoning Wikipedia that we might just as well go and cultivate the garden. Cheers. Opbeith (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So you were being facetious with your final argument to delete? Kevin (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-facetious. I think the explanation was there. When I updated the article from various sources including his website I never thought to check that he would copyright his own biographical details. Then the stuff from his own site plus some more (which wasn't copyright) was removed from the article. That was when I thought to myself that a journalist who doesn't believe that freedom of information applies to himself isn't worth bothering about. As far as I'm concerned he can sink or swing by his own principles, I've wasted my time trying to establish that the man was notable (which he is, and the original proposer simply couldn't be bothered to make any effort to check out the subject). That doesn't mean that deletion shouldn't proceed without checking the updated status of the article and the notability of the subject, whatever the comments. Opbeith (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Plaxico

That's fine, but where did my edit go? I can't find it in my contribs. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think User:Xeno deleted the revision. Kevin (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't get why, but I guess it's not worth fighting about. If someone uses the "Plaxico" terminology on AN/I again, i'll just be insistent that they don't in case someone does not know the context. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mao Dongdong

I`ve just discovered that my article regarding Mao Dongdong has been deleted. I know it was about a young child whose only claim to fame was a notorious ancestor (Mao Zedong) but I was just a bit disappointed. It was my first and, thus far, only contribution as an article. It was minor and admittedly I was using it as an educational tool for contributing to Wikipedia. I must say it was a real eye-opener to realise the effort involved in creating and maintaining articles on the site. However, I understand and accept the reasons for its deletion. It has certainly reinforced my belief that my role as a Wikipedia contributor is best served as a corrector of facts, spelling and grammar as it has been in the past.--Yameogo (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Melvyn Grant

KEVIN - WOULD YOU PLEASE REPLACE MY PAGE . MELVYN GRANT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.36.239 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article was copied from a page on www.nme.com, and was a copyright violation. As such I am unable to restore it, but you are welcome to rewrite it in your own words (although you will need an account first). Kevin (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Kevin - I am Melvyn Grant. I admit to not fully understanding how Wikipedia works, or the terms you use, but I'm trying. Although someone else started my page, I edited and added to it, in my own words, and all the information was correct and not copied from another place and in no violation of any copyright. It was there for public use and for anyone who wanted some information about me. I intended to add more information as time allowed. I would appreciate any help in restoring my page. The page was not copied from www.nme.com. It was the other way round and nme.com signs that the text was taken from Wikipedia 83.105.36.239 (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Hi Melvyn, thanks for explaining that. I can't believe I missed NME's disclaimer, very sorry about that. The article is back - Melvyn Grant. Before someone else points it out you should probably read WP:AUTO, which contains help on writing about yourself.

Sorry again, Kevin (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, no harm done. In fact you've given me a much needed prod to get and understand a bit more on how it all works. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.36.239 (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Arma Shahidi Fitzgerald

Hello Kevin,

I'm a bit confused and am curious if I could get some insight on the Arma Shahidi Fitzgerald page. When it was first put up for deletion it was incomplete but I was able to get various resources that were relevant (newspapers, news, magazines, etc.) I had included the standard beauty queen title holder template and all and was surprised when it was deleted with all the sources and information that was added. I look forward to your insight into either why it was deleted or hopefully, how to have it reinstated.

Thanks for you time! dericksc (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Primarily it was deleted because nobody made an argument to keep the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arma Shahidi Fitzgerald. Having read the links you added, I am not convinced that any show notability. Most are reprints of the same article, which is a very brief passing mention. That said, I can undelete and relist the deletion debate if you like. Kevin (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin for your response. Yes, if you would be willing to undelete it and reenlist it into debate, I would be grateful. I can make some additional changes to it as well. She is an international beauty queen which gives her celebrity status, so I feel she qualifies for notability, but I'll check my sources as well. Thank you so much for monitoring Wikipedia. dericksc (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. The article has been undeleted, and the AfD relisted. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to act fast - there are now 3 arguments to delete, and any passing admin may choose to close it again. Kevin (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected talk page

I've PRODed Gabriele Cattani for deletion and am unable to notify the creator (User:Curps) as their talk page is fully protected. As you were the last person to edit their talk page, would you be able to notify them of the PROD? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, Twinkle obviously edits through that protection without telling me, I never noticed it was protected before. I wouldn't worry, Curps is long gone. Kevin (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okie dokie - just wanted to dot my i's and cross my t's on the PROD nom. Thanks for checking!--Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Susan Roesgen

As a result of a sock hunt, the troublesome accounts have been blocked. Perhaps it's time to drop it down to semi-protection? Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've dropped it back to semi, no point giving them a free pass. Kevin (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed Esber

Ed Esber, is that you? I rewrote the opening to the Ed Esber page to make it less like a personal advertisement. Ed Esber himself (he refers to "I" and "me" in the history logs) reverted it several times to his promotional ad copy. Now you have reverted it to said promotional ad copy...are you working for Ed Esber?

My version is pretty balanced. Ed's isn't.

Mine:

Edward M. Esber, Jr. is the former CEO of Ashton-Tate, prior to its sale to Borland. Esber was involved in founding VisiCalc and presently works as an angel investor in Silicon Valley.

Ed Esber's self-written peacocking that you restored:

Edward M. Esber, Jr. was a personal computer pioneer who laid the foundation for a revolutionary industry. Esber is credited with being the marketing guru behind two of the personal computer industry’s best selling application programs at the dawn of the personal computer revolution; VisiCalc and dBase. Ed Esber convinced IBM Corporation to take microprocessors seriously, which led to the introduction of the IBM PC using an Intel Microprocessor. Esber later went on to pioneer the marketing of the first software that made buying a personal computer for business viable, VisiCalc. Esber later was the CEO of Ashton Tate, one of the three leading Personal Computer Software companies of the 1980s (along with Lotus and Microsoft). Then, Esber ran the Creative Labs, the U.S. subsidiary of Creative Technology. He is or has sat on the boards of over 30 companies, public, private and educational. Ed Esber is now an Angel Investor investing in exciting new companies in Silicon Valley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindog17 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the bit about "subsequent ruin" that I removed. Are any of the facts in the longer version incorrect? Kevin (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Agee

Hello Kevin. I disagree with the result of this deletion discussion and I would like to recreate the article, as I think that Chris Agee meets our criteria for authors.

The evidence:

• International Who’s Who in Poetry 2005, 13th Edition - original entry available at Google Books
• The book of Irish American poetry: from the eighteenth century to the present
• A father left bereft - The Irish Times
• World Literature Today
• The New North - culturenorthernireland.org
• Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment
• Aspects 2009 Irish Literature Festival
• Dublin Book Festival
• Franco-Irish Literary Festival
• Irish Writers Online

All in all, Agee has an entry in specialized printed encyclopedias, his books were published by several poetry publishers and his books/anthologies were reviewed in an Irish national newspaper and in a specialized literary journal - World Literature Today. Furthermore, his work has been noted by several literary festivals and he is a member of editorial boards of several magazines. All of it is easily verifiable using reliable sources, mentioned above. Could you please userfy the deleted content here? I'll also notify the editors who participated in the discussion. If you disagree with my intention, I'll take the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review for further consideration. Thank you, have a good day.--Vejvančický (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Vejvančický/Chris Agee. Kevin (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

talk, I didn't know that Chris Agee was being deleted, but then most of us don't know about most of the deletion processes going on in quiet. I quite agree with you about Chris Agee. I know of him mainly because of his role as a bridge between English language poetry and the poetry of Bosnia, and his anthology Scar on the Stone, with translations from the likes of Ted Hughes. All meaningless. You're fighting a lost cause, Wikipedia relishes devouring its children. Opbeith (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A ranting matyr. Just what I've always wanted. Kevin (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. The deletion of this article was the triumph of an alliance of philistinism and arrogance. Opbeith (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(i've seen worse AfD's) apparently, no one thinks much of that Irish anthology - find some more reviews or an anthology or award and it will be a keep. (oh and flag it Article Rescue Squadron) Pohick2 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

i've improved the article a little at User:Vejvančický/Chris Agee; would you care to give it a second look? (work in 3 anthologies, and bio in harvard magazine) Pohick2 (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've recreated the article. Thanks for your assistance, Kevin and Pohick2. No need for angry or ironic comments. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Rochelle Owens

by all means, i was wondering why that was deleted, (i don't see the offense there, but i agree labeling could be annoying) it is a verifiable reference, could you leave the ref part as an external link? Pohick2 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, check out the selective editing of "offensive words", is that ok? Pohick2 (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Kevin (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

What should we do with the last vote at this RFA where an IP signed for a user? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything, as it doesn't look like an attempt to skew the debate. It's most likely a mistake, not logging in or something. Kevin (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes to page

Hi Kevin, just wondering why you made the changes to the Herbal Magic page. Are you a volunteer? Wondering if you could state it on the talk page. Thanks! --Luna sky (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed your edit summary for removing deletion. Thanks! --Luna sky (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP contentiousness proposal

Just so you know, I've made a proposal at BLP in which I mention your name and disagree with your interpretation of policy. I'm not gauntlet–throwing, just trying to let you know in case you would like to respond. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Square Enix Music Team layoffs

Here's your source:

http://www.squareenixmusic.com/musicnews2.php?subaction=showfull&id=1267549876&archive=&start_from=&u —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raizen1984 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that the title includes the word "rumour", I think we will need to wait for a better one. Kevin (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Vivaldi

Hey there Kevin. I undid your protection of the Vivaldi page, per this ANI thread. I hope that's all right with you. NW (Talk) 04:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Didn't see that thread. Kevin (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Or notice that he has unfortunately died, apparently. Kevin (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP discussion

Hi Kevin/Archive 7! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I too am abandoning the RFC ship. With large and important issues it is an especially poor way of making decisions. The community has had ample opportunity to come up with a means of dealing with the issues I brought to a head, and they have failed. This is not so much a failure of those at the various discussions, rather a lack of a reasonable decision making process. Once I have dealt with a couple of things I am working on, I intend to pick up where I left off in January. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, could I ask you to hold off on this for ten days or so? I really do think we are quite close to at least accomplishing something (though I agree with you that it is about the minimum that could have been done without calling it "nothing accomplished"). NW (Talk) 02:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be a few days yet in any case. I have another 7000 unwatched articles to check for references. Would my continuing have a negative impact on the LP task force? Kevin (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe, but I doubt it, as the LP task force is pretty independent from enwiki. I'm just more concerned with the sticky prod or Jimmy's call for temporary Flagged Revisions (though I did see your rather cynical post on WR) falling apart because of the deletions. In any case, I would think that the deletions would have much more of an impact if they are done once the backlog clearing process stalls. At least then the average uninvolved reader would see that these actions are being done ought of necessity, not because you are an evil abusive admin. NW (Talk) 03:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming clear that my view of the way Wikipedia should be is inconsistent with the view of the masses. Actually, it has been clear for some time. It makes me wonder who is the more out of touch, the community who describe what is being made here an encyclopedia, or myself, who felt that direct action could actually provoke a change. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is everyone else out of step with me? Opbeith (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how I wish I could just tell you that the entire premise behind that question was wrong. But I can't, so I won't bother trying. NW (Talk) 17:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make any out-of-process deletions. Maurreen (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your plea would carry more weight with an actual argument. Kevin (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What would be your argument for doing so? Maurreen (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC) -- I could list a number of argument. But that fact that they are out of process is enough. I don't need to justify asking someone to follow rules. Maurreen (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you resume your deletions, I am certain that there will not be a second amnesty for your actions. Arbcom forgave it once, but many arbs have explicitly stated that resuming the mass deletions would not be a good idea. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really. I rather doubt any action would be taken. Kevin (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I see from your recent contribution history that you are big on removing unsourced content... but have you actually referenced ANY BLPs in the past 6 weeks? There are two ways to solve this problem. About 20 or so of us in WP:Australia have got our list down to about 25-30% of what it was back in Jan. Focusing on sourcing can work.The-Pope (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So I don't measure up to your standard? I'm sure that doesn't surprise either of us. Kevin (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kevin, the RfC may have got bogged down, but the work of dealing with unreferenced BLPs continues at a steady pace now that a large number of people are focused on it, which is evidenced by the way in which the number is dropping. There may come a time when that process is stalled and more drastic action is needed to deal with the rump but I don't believe that now is the right time. For instance, we've just had a bot pick up 3,600 articles (not all of them BLPs) for the Children's Literature Project. I'm almost half-way through the BLPs and a PRODing, referencing and tidying up as I go. It'll take another month or so to get to the end of the backlog. We're also watching the New articles. I genguinely think you should leave this be for a few more months before bringing it back for discussion.--Plad2 (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Plad explains the points I try to make quite a bit better than I can. NW (Talk) 17:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have filed a clarification on the arbitration case here. Maurreen (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake

I should have either stubbified or speedied Michael Peck. Instead, I merely tagged it with {{unreferencedBLP}}, a mistake. Live and learn, I suppose. NW (Talk) 12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a picture of Johnny Weir at the 2010 Independent Spirit Awards

Perhaps for the 2009-2010 section on the Johnny Weir page: Johnny Weir at 2010 Independent Spirit Awards.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdog (talk • contribs) 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Woroniecki Page

Obviously I have serious issues with your attempt to muzzle my suggestions. I have simply made those vis-a-vis content without editing, unlike Joshua Woroniecki. You're going to have to do a much better job justifying your attempt at censorship of my comments whilst allowing an interested party who clearly is on a crusade to change what has been posted in various fora on the internet. My comment on a site that has nothing to do with Wikipedia dealt with a fact relating to the Yates case. The subject claims he wasn't subpoenaed on his PR page. This is untrue. This is what I was referring to. Finally, please explain what you mean by a "crusade." Thank you.Jibbytot (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment there makes clear your feelings and intentions toward the subject. I think you understand perfectly what I mean by a crusade. Kevin (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you must mean by crusade then that you have evidence that I have engaged in numerous efforts against the subject. Where is your evidence besides one comment on a non-Wikipedia site? Also, you are placing yourself in the position of an arbiter or decision-maker. In my field -- law -- you need awfully good authority and good evidence to do what you are attempting. Please cite your authority and your evidence or direct me to the appropriate rule within Wikipedia where you have such authority to make this determination.Jibbytot (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Crusade" is how I describe statements such as "...teh internets will soon be awash in documented proof...". It isn't based on anything else. Also, if you read my comments carefully, you will see that I am expressing an opinion regarding your participation. Kevin (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is laughable in my opinion. I have repeatedly stated that my motive is to ensure objectivity and accuracy -- to wit, the truth. That's how I interpret, nay, meant the phrase "...teh internets will soon be awash in documented proof...." And if you understand internet humor you understand the connotation of the term "teh internets." It's only my opinion and I mean this with all due respect and in the most civil way possible but it appears to me that you should think a tad less highly of yourself and your ability to discern intent based on a mere one post on a non-Wikipedia site.Jibbytot (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dennis James (musician)

Kevin, would you take a look at what you did in reverting Dennis James (musician)? From your other work, I'm guessing your intentions were good, but it looks to me like you restored a hatchet job, e.g. "a position he was released from quickly, though the continued to claim he was still employed there" (not even very literate, that) or especially "Sadly, he has never been able to hold a job for very long, being terminated from almost 20 positions in as many years. Fortunately, his ex wife, Heidi, the more talented of the two, has gone on to better things." - Jmabel | Talk 03:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I picked up the wrong revison. Think it's OK now. Kevin (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Motion

Kevin, I've proposed a motion to ArbCom.

It is intended to get the most acceptance by the most people.

ArbCom member Carcharoth has asked me to "ask those involved in these discussions to comment on whether they think a motion such as you have proposed is needed, especially those you have mentioned in it,"

Regardless of whether you think the motion is needed, I want to give you opportunity to comment. Maurreen (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have said that I would desist from further deletions in line with Scott, against my better judgement I must say. Given that, what exactly is your motion supposed to achieve? While it is difficult to imagine a process less likely to get a result than the RfC, the arbcom clarification might just beat it. Kevin (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have said you would desist. But others have made summary deletions since the original mass deletions. I'd prefer any further discussion to take place on the ArbCom page, just for the sake of consolidation. Maurreen (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems a little ironic to ask me to keep this discussion centralised, when the BLP issue has been split over several pages, to the point that none of the remaining bits have many interested parties left. Kevin (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the proliferation was unhelpful. I acknowledge that I did start the prod workshop on a page other than the RFC. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Maurreen (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been 8 weeks now and in my opinion, we have achieved precisely nothing in terms of changing policy. No doubt many are very pleased with the result. Kevin (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you try changing relevant policy first? That is, before the mass deletion? Maurreen (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Some months ago Scott and I tried very hard to get something done the usual way, but as I'm sure you are aware getting consensus for any change whatsoever is impossible here, and we failed. My biggest failing this time around was stopping too soon. Pressure seems to be a great motivator. Kevin (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For the person exercising the pressure, it would seem. Opbeith (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

ACTDU

Talk page consensus relates to list of winners (gone), not to list of state teamers, which are actually quite well sourced in various media, and which there is some sympathy for. Don't delete it again thanks, as there is no such consensus, and it is not a privacy invasion.JJJ999 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page. Kevin (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• You're not an admin, and if a complaint is made it then becomes a matter for that admin to remove that one name. It's very well sourced in places, and with time more sources could easily be found. Consensus fail.JJJ999 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am an admin, not that that makes any difference. Go and read WP:BLP so that you understand why adding unsourced material on living people is a bad thing. Kevin (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of it is very well sourced, as you will notice, and I'm pretty sure that's just grounds for removing the one person, not the whole thing, which there is a good basis for building consensus on having notability, in line with the many sources that reference the team and membersJJJ999 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I do not have the time to go through each entry, and have a valid complaint to deal with, I will be removing the table again. I very strongly suggest that you not replace any unsourced entries. Feel free to replace a condensed, fully sourced version. Kevin (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I will look into this, and see what other sources are available. I will have time to consider a rewrite on the weekend. In the meantime, recommend removing just the name involved. I can't see your link btw, I don't have a login, can you please let me know the name so it isn't included in the new version? Also, I don't think a fully sourced version is required, no page requires that, just one with most of it sourced, and the potential for more to be sourced laterJJJ999 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Add-on- I also don't think removing it all is the best outcome, just because you're too busy to check sources... the fair outcome seems to be to remove the one name, and allow the process to continue.JJJ999 (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just read your comment on the talk page. I'm sorry, but I need more to go on here. 1) I don't know you're an admin, and 2) You have to tell me so it doesn't get included in a rewrite, which you admit you lack time to do. I think just removing the person's name is the sensible option.JJJ999 (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For 1, see [22]. If it turns out that the name is included in a reliable source, and is seen to be sufficiently important for inclusion, then we can deal with that later. I will not divulge the contents of private correspondance under any circumstances. Kevin (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• In the first place, I don't see how it can possibly be a privacy violation (noting s/he was on a team? It's not like there is any other information about them). In the second place, the fact that the person has contacted you doubtless concedes the veracity of the information (they don't deny it), in which case you're just wasting my time, because if even half the list can be sourced there is every reason in the world to include it, because that's how wikipedia works. Other stuff can be sourced later, you just need to prove there is enough mention of the subject matter itself to make it notable, which sources on the team would do. Sorry, I am pretty sure there are ways disputes like these are resolved, and I don't think your "kill all the information" is the standard policy for this. It's also a waste of my time because I have to look for sources you may later claim we have to dump (because they are either for that person, or indirectly mention them). I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but there is no way your approach can be the method by which this sort of issue is resolved. And how can wikipedia be violating privacy if we're merely noting information that is readily available elsewhere (notable or not; though obviously notable sources can be found too)JJJ999 (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll do it your way then. I am going to remove the table, because we do not allow unsourced material about living people, especially when they tell us that it is causing them a problem. If you replace any unsourced entries, I will block you. Kevin (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, no wikipedia page requires every single name or place or fact to have a source next to it, and you're wasting my time with no basis given. What on earth do you intend to do when sources are invariably added? Seriously now, I'd like an answer to that question. Assuming you have any authority, you've overstepped it. I'll be complaining about this in due course.JJJ999 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the usual complaints venue. Kevin (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bring it on. I'm going to re-add the list under wiki rules once I've added more sources later this week, not the made up guidelines you've invented above. And if you try to block the list on the basis that every word isn't sourced, we'll see just how your ANI goes.JJJ999 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so long as you understand that biographical material must be sourced. If you are creating a list, that means every name. Kevin (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so long as they comply with actual rules you mean? Because BLP does not say anything like "a persons name on a list with no other information whatever" constitutes a privacy violation. It talks about personal information, sensationalism and conjecture and so on, which could harm their personal life. It is not readily apparent how the listing of a person's name as having been on a state team harms their life, or is at all in line with BLP, regardless of your claims to the contrary that every name in a list needs to be fully sourced to exist. The material is not "biographical" in any sense, no more than a list of school captains on a school entry is "biographical".JJJ999 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this another way: where are you getting the names from? Kevin (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Aside from the sources that reference them, and the local newspaper articles they make at least once a year after the tournament? From hardcopy files I obtained from the ACTDU, who I'm sure could e-mail the information if need be. Heck, I'm going to ask them to put the information on their website, so not only will the veracity not be in doubt, but any claim of privacy breach will be moot. Whoever complained can whine to the ACTDU. I wish them luck in their obviously frivolous complaints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.210.165 (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have opened a ANI about this page and JJJ999 here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union.2C_User:JJJ999.2C_121.45.216.232_.26_121.45.196.175. Codf1977 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Dude. the material has been REWRITTEN. It's not the same fricking material! Please unprotect and restore.JJJ999 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Go and shout at the talk page. In any case, you are edit warring, something you have been blocked for several times. You know better, don't you? Kevin (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to enjoy bringing back those sources as soon as I have time. You may want to look into copyright law, because you don't understand it.JJJ999 (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My protection was due to edit warring. That it was over a copyright issue is not relevant. I left a note on your talk page about how to assert permission for the meterial as one way to resolve the dispute, one that does not involve determining whether or not something has been adequately rewritten. I left it in an attempt to be helpful, not to tell you what to do. Kevin (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC deleted

Hello Kevin I just noticed you deleted a RfC in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MarshalN20 however I think it was a little bit too precipitated because it was discussed a week before here and months before here. The second user certifying corroborated he was the ip on the list "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute". And back then it was consulted that it isn't a requirement to have an account to be part of the process to resolve any dispute besides other users participated actively User:Keysanger, User:Dentren and User:Arafael finally that RfC did have an outcome which was mediation (which is in progress) and archived properly, so I don't think it was necessary to delete it, could you review it? Thanks Erebedhel - Talk 03:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

prod BLP template fixes

Thanks for following up about my bumbling edits within the two BLP unsourced related templates. Could you please see and comment at Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop#Categories? I do think that there needs to be one category programmed into place, and think there is consensus for that (although perhaps not on exact wording for the category), to appear in the articles that have the new unsourced BLP tag applied to them. I just don't know how/where to put it into place, myself. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just revert all my edits, and then go do whatever you like. I'm just going to use WP:PROD, which I believe already works. Kevin (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Danish Taimoor - deletion

Hi, I cant seem to find any proper sourced links on him, even though he is active on other portals like facebook and all. All his publications seem to be in URdu language in pakistan, and none in english. please advise. thanks --Sonisona 08:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona (talk • contribs)

Good to see

It's good to see that your latest attack on uBLPs is using the appropriate tool this time round. We've had 2 months of referencing and I reckon that most truly notable articles have been done - at least in the Australian pool (if we lose a few soapie "stars" I won't lose any sleep) - and between the DashBot and Article Alerts automated updates, we've got the tool to detect when they've been tagged - and the time to respond. And I admit we've slowed down - but referencing 1600 Aussie ones down to around 300, with a couple of hundred tagged since Jan isn't too bad. We either need a prompt like yours or something else to get going again. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another prompt is exactly what I was thinking is needed. Kevin (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

George Louie

Kevin, George Louie is not an advocate for disabled people. He is not a lawyer. I looked him up on calbar.org and confirmed he is not an attorney or lawyer, even though many people believe he is based upon the number of lawsuits he has filed. Jamesw9 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was using advocate in a non-legal sense. There may be a better word to describe him. Kevin (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

St Patrick's College

Kevin I have real problem with you removing the section on St Patrick's College particularly as you are an administrator. It is not possible to move forward if we sanitise the past. Have a look at the Wiki entry for the Bristol Royal Infirmary for example. While that hospital does considerable good work it is also a sentinal hospital for failings in clinical governance with the deaths of many children. It is fully included in the entry.

Similarly St Patrick's College was a sentinal institution in education for it's failure to enforce it's values and care for it's students in the 1970s. Your removal of information which is clearly accurate and adequately referenced from a number of sources is highly disrespectful to the many students who were victims of sexual abuse while in the care of the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark358689 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Gracie and Zarkov

The article Gracie and Zarkov was placed on AfD on 30 September 2009, and eventually, after being relisted twice, consensus was reached. The consensus of delete was confirmed by you when closing the discussion. Yet the AfD tag was then removed (this remains the most recent edit), and the article continues to exist, 5 months and 15 days after you closed the discussion. I was wondering if I have missed something here, or should the article be deleted after all? If so, would you mind doing the honours, as I am not an admin :P
Thanks in advance, -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 16:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:DRV might be the best venue. Someone else restored the article - [23]. Kevin (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Marloes Horst

Kevin, I am wondering why you decided to delete the page on Marloes Horst. The page is far from done and I and others will add when time is available. We are trying to write up a page on her similar as is done for e.g., Doutzen Kroes. This page is not marked for deletion. What is the difference between them?

Sticky prods

Hi Kevin/Archive 7'! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.
There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a last ditch attempt to stop this from going ahead. Feels a lot like square one again. Kevin (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, i've been doing my best to try and nudge it along. With a little bit of luck, we should have it finalized within a week. Those few cries for a third RFC are falling on deaf ears. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all trying to stop it. I've said so a few times. Maurreen (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You may or may not be (personally I don't think you are) but there most certainly are a handful of editors who are making a last-ditch effort to filibuster. They will fail. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that some people have not accepted the principle established by the RFC, and that that position is at best a losing cause. Maurreen (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And while 1000s of words have been spent on what could have been achieved with so much less, absolutely nothing has been done on the backlog, the clearing of which has slowed to a trickle. I can't believe I fell for the whole RFC thing as being a "less chaotic" way forward. Kevin (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, substantial work has been done on the backlog. However, the numbers don't go down quickly because unsourced BLPs are being newly-identified every day. We don't actually know how many are out there; there may be tens of thousands more that haven't been identified yet. That those working on the backlog have managed to keep it slowly but steadily decreasing should be applauded. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Try drawing a graph - there is an exponential decline in the backlog reduction. I'm not knocking the efforts of those working on it, but they are too few, and the backlog is too great. Kevin (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been keeping a graph, yes. You might be interested in this that Betacommand is doing for me; it has kept a tally of unsourced BLPs once every day since February 20th. Yes, it is slowing down, but still progressing. At any rate, there will be a formal review in two more months where sterner measures may (unfortunately) be required.

On a not-quite-related note, you may be interested in what I was discussing with Lar on his talk page about resurrecting Liberal Semi and putting it into the protection policy. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, had we set some kind of goal we might well call it progress, but as we did not, I'm not sure we can call it anything. And while liberal semi-protection is great, it relies on someone already having been fucked over by their Wikipedia bio, and someone noticing it. It is a bandaid solution at best. Kevin (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP: Filibustering is a fair word to use in these circumstances. As far as I can see, it comes mainly from newcomers to the topic, who, like any any latecomer at this stage, find it impossible to figure out what has gone before (let's face it, the two Phases of the RfC were a mess.). This may also include some who breeze in at the last minute, with an attitude to boot, and appear to be attempting to take the credit for the work - or at least the policy. I think Maureen's efforts however are certainly in GF, but possibly her most recent call for a poll might not have been absolutely necessary - it has shown an interesting result though. I firmly agree that this thing should be got on the road asap, and the next few weeks will allow the creases to be ironed out. To do this effectively we need the Twinkle feature setting up, but all the programmers seem to either have gone on holiday, or are now afraid to spend much time on it.--Kudpung (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle is not being set up because despite weeks of discussion, there are still editors trying hard to prevent forward motion. Don't blame Twinkle programmers for the bullshit going on at WP:STICKY, or wherever it has been moved to this week. Kevin (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle BLPPROD is now live. It can be found on the "Prod" button. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong Kevin. What I was saying was exactly how you reacted - because of all the stop-start bullshit, brought on mainly by a relative latecomer who wants to change all the policy at the last minute, the Twinkle tweakers were at a loss to know what to do. I have at times tried to coordinate their efforts and they have my every sympathy, because the programmers of anything on Wikipedia work in the basement and rarely get any recognition at all for their work. I also agree (as one of the (janitors) that it's a bit like a police chase up the motorway to keep track of all the page moves, and the archiving up the side roads.--Kudpung (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fuck this. My patience has expired. You've managed to water this down until there is nothing left, and you're still arguing. Kevin (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#What else needs to be done? seems pretty clear to me. Those who tried to put up further roadblocks have been shouted down; we should be good to go now (at least for a few months). --MZMcBride (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite know who or what you are addressing there, Kevin. If it's my comment, well I'm sorry you missed the fact that I was wholeheartedly agreeing with you on every point, and sympathising with the fact that the programmers had been pissed about. --Kudpung (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Kevin's frustration just might have to do something with the fact that after two and a half months of debate, nothing has gotten done. Yes, I see what has been declared policy. In the big picture, nothing has been done. Sure 10,000 articles have been minimally sourced, and we are now not letting a dozen articles/day through. That is quite meaningless in the big picture. NW (Talk) 00:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How about fixing WP:PROF and WP:ATH? Right now they allow people with no secondary source coverage pass notability. WP:PROF is based on the notability of their work instead of the person, and WP:ATH is based on the level of sport they played at. Both allow for people failing the GNG through. Gigs (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As great a place to start as any, and better than most. One would have to hash out a coherent and detailed proposal that rebuts all major arguments, and I have never seen such a proposal. Would you care to write one? NW (Talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)What we need to do is fix the attitude that unsourced BLPs are fine. Regardless of the "do no harm" argument, which in my opinion should be enough to get rid of every unsourced BLP, we are supposed to be making an encyclopedia. Scholarly sources and all that. If this was a business we would all have been fired long ago. Like NW says, in the big picture we have achieved absolutely nothing. We need a paradigm change, not incremental shifts. Kevin (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal at WT:BIO to tighten the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. If you have an idea on how to do this, you might wish to weigh in. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to reiterate what Kevin said. I've been bowled over the last few days to find there are people still arguing that BLPs without reliable sources are okay, as though the last several years of content policy development had never happened.

The policies say—and this has all been in these policies in one form or another for years:

• "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (WP:V and WP:NOR).
• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V).
• "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to cite a reliable published source that contains that same material" (WP:NOR).
• "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented (WP:NOR).
• "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources" (WP:NOR).
• "This policy ... [prohibits editors] from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources" (WP:NOR).
• "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources (WP:BLP).
• "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves ... so long as ... the article is not based primarily on such sources" (WP:V).
• "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page" (WP:V).
• "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (WP:BLP).
• "Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard" (WP:BLP).

The above is just a selection, and doesn't include all the other policies and guidelines that say the same or similar. I thought the battle for decent sources had been won years ago on WP, so I've been pretty depressed to find myself having to argue for it from scratch. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, whilst I agree entirely with your list, I cannot recall having read a suggestion anywhere that BLPs without reliable sources are OK. The whole concept seems silly - just who are those people? There was some discussion over the semantic differences between reliable and relevant, but that, as far as I remember, was all.--Kudpung (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you can't have been watching closely, Kudpung, because this was what the dispute was mainly about. The first version posted by Maurreen asked only for a source, and when that was changed to reliable source, Geni reverted back to any source (because we shouldn't be "forcing newbies to deal with our RS policy") as did Maurreen ("restore 'source' with no specification about level of sourcing") and again and again. Then Geni reverted it once more ("rm requirment there is no consensus for"). Maurreen removed it a fourth time and changed it to "relevant" source, left undefined, as did Rd232, as did Gigs (in fairness to Gigs he supports "reliable," but with the others removing it he thought there was a consensus against it), until finally several people posted in support of "reliable" on talk. Maurreen removed it once more even after that.

"Reliable source" has an accepted description on WP; see here. The whole point of having policies is that we don't have to reinvent the wheel like this every time we discuss an issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, i think your efforts have not at all been wasted. I didn't realize it was you that started the mass-deletion of articles back in January; when i heard about the brouhaha i wasn't much concerned because i didn't think it had much relevance (as i work mostly on historic sites articles which are usually well-sourced). I'm one who has come around to thinking the BLP unsourced and undersourced issues are very important, and have been tagging and prodding some now. The fact that the category of BLP unsourced has shrunk from 52000 to 38000 overall (despite many many more being added), and that many editors like me are now involved, is HUGE. I agree that changes to address Athlete notability and the IMDB/other reliability issues are v. important, though. My view is that 38000 is huge, too, but i believe it is being addressed, instead of growing.

SV, i think your concern is overstated. No one is advocating for no sources or for unreliable sources. I think the BLPprod is useful for being so clear to offending contributors and to all editors concerned. It would be diluting the effort to address the truly, obiously inappropriate unsourced BLPs, to try to redirect the effort to address all BLPs which are imperfectly sourced. It's a matter of tactics. I like the strong effect of focus on articles that are a) completely unsourced b) BLP issue present and c) older than 3 years (or whatever age). Labelling those clearly and nominating them for deletion is important and good to do, perhaps the most important thing to do. Tackle the worst, first. And try to stop new unsourced BLPs upfront, by the BLPprod. Quibbling about whether IMDB is reliable or not is important but secondary, relatively.

Not sure what should be next big priority for Wikipedia, but honestly i think the effort to address truly unsourced BLPs by identifying and then fixing or deleting them, is working. Hope you both don't mind my commenting here. I don't want to argue, i just wanted to say that i think there has been some misunderstandings, and the effort overall is working, IMHO. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Random idea

So Kevin, I had an idea that I wanted to kick around. Instead of mass deletions next time, Twinkle batch semi-protect until flagged revisions are turned on? Definitely more useless, but much harder to argue against. Thoughts? NW (Talk) 00:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've though of that. What does it achieve though? We need a large scale change of attitude towards BLPs, and small scale efforts on largely unwatched articles just doesn't achieve that. Deletions had a larger impact, but I stopped way too soon. What I really wanted to do with the deletions was give the community a kick in the ass, and create an environment where unsourced BLPs are just not acceptable, the same way we do not accept copyright violations. In this, I have utterly failed, and pretty much everything I'm doing here is an expression of frustration at that failure. Kevin (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Woroniecki

You have a note at OTRS, 2010022110023583. Good work on that one, sir. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Has no-one else picked up that ticket? Kevin (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sabrina Man

Hi there. You proposed this article for deletion using the WP:BLPPROD process; I have contested the deletion, as some sources have now been added. If you still feel the article should be deleted, feel free to take it to AFD. Robofish (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for improving the page Kamel Riahi, I appreciate it.Rocalisi (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Evan Starkman

Your prod was removed, so I followed up with a nomination at AFD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Evan Starkman page

Okay, well I don't really know what else to say, man. I added in his two clothing companies and tried to use reliable sources, but there aren't that many. So sorry..? that you don't think it's "relevant", but I think that a page for him is if people want to know more about individual competitors. I put a lot of work into this page and I think that everything is on point now--I revised it as much as I could after I got your warning. I'm sure you're busy with other pages, but please take a look and tell me what you think I need to do otherwise, cause I'm kind of at a loss and I'm new to making these pages. I'm sorry that I removed the notice, but I thought that I had cleared all of the citations up.

Thank you.

Woroniecki

There's a supportive message for you at OTRS. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kevin, 'Special project'?

Is there an icon that I could insert this as my special project? Faith#Advantages_associated_with_faith, what would be my script?Rocalisi (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Boba Phat at AFD again

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ike Davis

Is it time to unprotect Ike Davis? It's been over two months. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted "Amapola Cabase"

RE: A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 21:50, 22 October 2009 Kevin (talk | contribs) deleted "Amapola Cabase" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amapola Cabase (2nd nomination)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iampears (talk • contribs)

Hi Kevin,

I would like to re-create this deleted article using the same content except I will have additional reliable/outside citations/references (total of 10). I am new in using Wiki but will either read the tutorial or ask someone who has submitted articles here to do it for me. Please let me know the best way I could get this started or if I can just "edit" the deleted article and add new references.

Thanks,

Iampears (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete Ayers mugshot?

There's a discussion of retaining this here -- an editor recently deleted it. You may wish to comment. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unintended alteration?

This edit seems to have edited Jimmy's comment. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ta. Maybe random trolling isn't for me. Kevin (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean that wasn't intentional? Pity :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the Great Jimbo is quite capable of fucking himself over without my dubious help. Kevin (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

psst

That comment in the BLP unsourced stats subsection didn't get signed. Just a friendly FYI. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 04:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

sources

A visitor to the academia wikia found an artical that was at one time published here and then deleted as original research. The visitor wanted to know whether it or any articals had passed peer review bringing to my attention the fact thata no articals had been formally peer reviewed. I attribute the reason to the fact that the wikia is not an established journal and that articals may be published there without even a conventional intake review. Such articals are therefore can not be taken seriously enough to merit the time and effort necessary for peer review by anyone, much less a professional in the field. Some articals do, however, attract discussion, questions and comments that might lend to peer review.

Another wikia artical that was deleted from the wikipedia now has an online proof of concept which indicates the concept is valid whether original research or not. In an accredited school this article might indeed be accepted as a master's thesis so my question is: where might articals written by authors who are not affiliated with any school, which are deemed original research here be professionally reviewed online, even for a fee? Submission to a conventional publisher seems the only avenue for any valid review.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.213.127 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your AfDs

I know it gets boring filling out AfD after AfD when there are so many articles deserving of deletion, but out of respect to people who are taking their time to review and comment on your AfDs could you please take care to describe the nominated article correctly? You appear today to have been copy/pasting the text "long unsourced article" for your nominations, when many of the nominated articles in fact are not long at all. The reaction I have as a reviewer to seeing this is to suspect that if you have been careless in describing the article you may also have been careless in performing good faith searches to establish its notability, which makes me disinclined to contribute to the argument. Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced for a long time is what I meant. Perhaps a reword is in order though, to make that point clearer. Kevin (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh... long-unsourced! Sorry, that makes much more sense. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janette Luu

In addresing your concern that the article was "Long unsourced article on a subject with no reliable secondary sources", editors using WP:AFTER and WP:ATD have now expanded and properly sourced the article Janette Luu. If you feel your concerns have been addressed, might you consider a withdrawal? Thank, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the sourcing now looks much better. In light of the other delete opinion, this might have to go the distance though. Presumably it will be kept in the end anyway. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Undelete request for John O'Hara (musician)

The user who nominated this for deletion did not notify any of the wikiprojects tagged on the talk page (the rock, BLP, or progressive rock wikiprojects would all cover this musician). Unfortunately the deleted page prevents me from checking whether even the original author was notified. I have over 4000 pages on my watchlist, so somethings go unnoticed (especially since the Progressive Rock project doesn't have article alerts set up). Can this article please be undeleted and redirected to the band if it is indeed not notable; there is no reason to delete the history. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll have more luck at WP:REFUND, I am no longer an admin and cannot undelete for you. Kevin (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Stana Katic semiprotection

Hi Kevin, would you have any objections if I tried unprotection of Stana Katic? I think it's time to give it a shot, and I'll be sure to monitor the article for any problems. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Undelete Request for Edgar Gonzalez (architect) (Mexican) request

Hello kevin, I noticed that the page that was written about me has been deleted. I was notified by a newspaper reporter who was looking for it.

I set this request for the page to be bring back, I wanted to update some info about it, (some recent mayor jurys I have done as the Biennale and premis FAD), besides my webpage edgargonzalez.com for which I am very well known in spain specially has been setting as a mayor influence in the architectural scene.

I read that one of the reasons is because there is another architect (older and cuban) named the same as me, actualy Iknow him and we worked at the same office on different times Zaha Hadid Architects.

In my humble opinion, being named the same as someone disqualifies you from appearing on wikipedia, I am a semi-public figure on Spain where i Live and Work.

I hope you reconsider the deletion, thanks a lot. edgargonzalez (the mexican one) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgargonzalez (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Recreate OurStage article

Hi Kevin, I'd like to recreate the article page OurStage following guidelines for asserting its importance and/or significance, which was the reason it was deleted 2 years ago. Would like to create it under Special:Mypage/OurStage to ensure proper compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please let me know that this is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplejoy420 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you still an admin?

If I recall during the EB mediation years back you were but are no longer right? The results section is reserved for administrators as far as I know. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I did resign the tools some time ago, however my opinion stands. Your "I didn't know that" routine is particularly unconvincing. Kevin (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is in the wrong section if you aren't an admin. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think your argument is improved by complaining about the location of a comment, then have at it. Kevin (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jarrett Lee

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jarrett Lee. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. bender235 (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Undelete Request for Tony Grimaud

I notice that the page on the Maltese singer/songwriter had been removed from here. would you kindly enlighten me why this was done, and how it can be restored. Thank you so much. Phatwon (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Modelinia

I have been working to revise this article so that it will better conform to Wikipedia's standards, and was wondering what more I need to do in order to remove the flag.

I have re-linked several references and deleted links that have suffered from rot.

Though I understand that there are elements of the article that do "sound like an advertisement," I'm unsure if it needs to be completely re-written or just pared down and simplified. AJamesPrice (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

sorry for the confusion

Hi kevin. No, my comment was not aimed at you. I drafted my comment in response to the post before yours. Unfortunately the landscape there keeps changing too quickly for me to respond in time or even to correct any mistakes. I endorse your 'delete view. I should know better than to get involved in those circular debates. Sorry for the confusion! McOoee (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Kevin. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Biography

Kevin I would appreciate if you could also have a look at the Talk section of my biography also. There are some seriously defamatory and malicious comments being inserted by one unsigned editor. Not sure how you prevent that. Thanks MH 220.245.205.26 (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of State Fund Insurance

Wikipidiots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.44.142 (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on State Fund Insurance, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Marc Sinden page

Hi there, many thanks for the revert this morning, however I would have thought that the Daily Mail, Esquire magazine and BBC Radio 4 fit into the parameter of good sources, would you not agree? If you are OK with them I shall put the para back. Manxwoman (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If I was OK with them I would not have removed it. The Daily Mail piece supports nothing of that paragraph, and the BBC Radio piece even less. The rest are gossip rags. Much better sourcing will be needed to replace the material. Kevin (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I'm not that bothered, but the main jist of it IS from the article in Esquire, which is properly sourced and certainly seems very extensively researched and not what I would call "a gossip rag"! Last appeal to replace...? Manxwoman (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You could ask at WP:BLPN. Kevin (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Life's too short!!!! Cheers! Manxwoman (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sam Holbrook

Just a heads up: When you semi-protected the page a short while back, no icon was put up on the page to reflect it's protection. AutomaticStrikeout 00:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I find people tend to find out when they try to edit. Kevin (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please contact the Arbitration Committee

Hello, Kevin. Please contact the Arbitration Committee by email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org or Special:Emailuser/Arbitration Committee at your earliest convenience; I will be sending you an email shortly with more information. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevin's unblock of User:Cla68

Kevin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unilaterally reversed a block placed by two oversighters relating to the repeated posting of personal information. Kevin failed to obtain agreement for the unblocking from either the oversighters or the Arbitration Committee prior to doing so. Accordingly, Kevin is temporarily desysopped in accordance with Level II procedures for removing administrative tools. The unblock of Cla68 (talk · contribs) is to be reversed until Cla68's appeal is addressed by the Arbitration Committee.

• Support: Carcharoth, Coren, Courcelles, Hersfold, David Fuchs, SilkTork, Timotheus Canens
• Oppose: Newyorkbrad
• Recused: Kirill Lokshin, NuclearWarfare
• Not voting: AGK, Risker, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned
• Inactive: Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

RfA

Good afternoon, good sir. I've seen you around the Wiki and I think you'd make an excellent sysop. Have you considered running for RfA? In all seriousness, Hersfold's comments indicate that you've "lost the trust of the community" and that an RfA would be needed to get your tools back. If you need a nom, I'll be happy to jump in that drama pot and stir it vigorously until you have your tools back.--v/r - TP 17:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

He should probably wait for the shitstorm to subside before taking such a gesture, presuming it does not get resolved in the end. At this point a lot of people would oppose just because there is some public bitchfest going on right now.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's good advice, actually. Kevin, if you're thinking of pursuing an RfA (though you do have other options), it would be best to wait at least a couple of months until doing so. Prioryman (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I might wait for an official response from the Arbitration Committee, not just a passing comment from a couple of arbs before I make any decision. I may even have a discussion with them, although they do not seem amenable to that at the moment. Thanks so much for your advice though. Kevin (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is its a good thing that we have more than enough Admins to perform all the necessary admin tasks these days (Sarcasm intended) because desysopping Kevin for making a call is a prime example of the general douchebaggery that goes on in WP these days. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

E-mails

Would you be willing to disclose the contents of the e-mail you received from AGK and the e-mail you sent? Obviously, redact information where necessary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AGK would obviously need to give permission for me to quote his email, but I think I can safely paraphrase without breaking any rules. Bit of background, Hersfold left the note above, and also presumably emailed me, but as my email account was out of date I never received it. When I saw the note here I sent an email saying "You called?". AGK then sent an email saying thanks for getting in touch, and asking why I had unblocked, while knowing that there were oversighted edits involved.

I sent this reply to AGK, CCd to arbcom-l

Anthony,

There are a couple of reasons. Underlying my reasons is the principle that blocks are preventative, and not punitive. Regardless of what Cla posted, his promise not to repost the material, combined with my observation of his character over the years, led me to believe that the material would not be reposted. I had no need to see the actual material to make a judgement on whether or not he would be likely to repost it.

Also, I find the concept of preventing a user from access to their talk page, whilst having strident discussions on that talk page regarding the fate of the user to be abhorrent. It goes against the principles of natural justice. Now I know that Cla posted a couple of times, and that the initial block and talk page revocation were likely justified. However once things had cooled down, the necessity for the block was gone.

Regards,

Kevin Godfrey

I later emailed Hersfold to find out what the missing email contained, but he said that his questions had been answered. Since then I've heard nothing. I guess I expected that my email was a discussion opener, not the entirety of my case. Kevin (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

rfar

fyi

Thanks. I'm not ignoring your email either, just figured that the answer had been worked out by the time I woke up. Kevin (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas ^t 07:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration and adminship

Please note my comment on the pending request for arbitration, here. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment

It was a fairly bad idea to unblock Cla68 and ignoring the private evidence and concerns regarding outing, and for making it so that nobody, not even an oversighter who has access to the evidence, can reblock under penalty of desysopping, as that would be wheel warring. --Rschen7754 19:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can re-block should Cla68 repost the offending material. If he doesn't then he equally doesn't need to be blocked. Kevin (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, could you please clear something up for me? The blocking admin posted in his edit summary "please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team". Did you have any contact with the oversighters before unblocking? Prioryman (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, and no I didn't. Kevin (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Er. Could you explain why? Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe because Cla68 stated that he had no intention of repeating the sort of actions that prompted the block. Just a thought.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not really an explanation for 'An ArbCom-appointed functionary told us explicitly not to do what I just did'. It's an explanation for why Kevin might've thought talking to the OSers was a good idea. Ironholds (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the point of the blocking admin's statement was that the decision on unblocking was supposed to be made by the oversight team, not J. Random Administrator. Kevin isn't an oversighter or an arbitrator so hasn't been party to the discussions that have being going on behind the scenes. I don't think anyone will be reblocking, but it's also fairly obvious that Kevin has trodden rather heavily on the toes of the Arbcom and the oversighters - not the kind of thing they appreciate. Herfold's message in the section above is unlikely to be an enquiry about what Kevin had for breakfast today. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the Beebs had the authority to force all the lesser admins to abide by his decrees. Oh wait, he doesn't. Kevin obviously knew the basis of the block and, given Cla68's pledge, lifted it on the basis that such a decision was within reason under the circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

DA has covered it, so I won;t repeat that. In addition, the concept of sticking an editor in the corner with a gag, whilst holding discussion about his fate seems to me to be entirely unfair. There would have to be extreme circumstances to do such a thing, i.e. that the revealing of private information was a certaintly to recurr. Kevin (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (in reply to TDA:) If Kevin knew the content of the basis for the block from private communication with Cla68, I'd say that demonstrated that Cla didn't understand that continued outing wasn't acceptable and that Kevin shouldn't have unblocked someone who didn't understand that. If he knew it from some other method, he was making a decision based on possibly-faulty information from a third party. If he didn't know it at all, then he was taking an administrator action in a situation where he wasn't able to adequately review the evidence. There's pretty much no explanation for this unblock in which Kevin made an informed decision based on familiarity with the evidence of the case. That is what Beeblebrox's "do not unblock without consulting" restriction was supposed to account for - no non-oversighter can adequately review the basis for the block or the prognosis for an unblock without access, either directly or through a consultation with an OSer, to what went on to cause the block.

(in reply to Kevin:) Kevin, you made an unblock when the person you unblocked had clearly stated that rather than acknowledging that he wouldn't continue pursuing the issue of another editor's identity, he was going to take it to public noticeboards. He told us that that's what he intended to do, in the same note where he declined Newyorkbrad's recommendation for how to be unblocked. That seems a very clear indication to me that he was going to continue his behavior, with his only concession being that he wouldn't directly say or link to the name of the person. Outing policy covers more, far more, than that - an important point that Cla68 does not yet seem to grasp or abide by, and you don't seem to have taken into consideration. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I had no private communication with Cla68, or any other user. As I've just told arbcom, my faith in Cla68's promise not to repost the name of to link to the post was not dependent on what that name was, or where the link went to. Kevin (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean you assumed good faith? What are you, crazy — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In my naivety it hadn't occurred that some policies are merely traps for the unwary ;) Kevin (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion

A motion which involves you has been proposed and is being voted on by the Arbitration Committee. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but they are not going to like what I'm writing there now. Kevin (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A good carpenter measures 3 times before cutting. In other words, make sure it's not something you'll regret later. IJS — Ched :  ?  22:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, but there's some nails that need pounding. Kevin (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I even understand. :-) — Ched :  ?  22:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Enough

Kevin, it is really not okay for you to continue playing games with Wikipedia. If you want to be an admin, stand up and say so, and agree to follow the responsibilities of adminship, including the one that says you may not overturn the actions of a fellow administrator without consulting them first. You know what you need to say. If you don't agree, say so and resign. This dispute is causing a lot of needless strife. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Game playing would be if I made a statement that knew would win favour, rather than one which expresses my true feelings, which is what I have done. I've made clear my reasons for doing what I did, noted that I understand where Arbcom is coming from, that I disagree with their position, but that I am willing to abide by their request. The needless strife was caused by implementing harsh and extremely public solutions for problems that could have been resolved quietly and privately. Kevin (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that this issue has been beaten to much, and I agree with you completely that the functionaries and ArbCom did exactly the opposite of what they should have done. Happy editing, Jehochman ^Talk 21:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	This is for standing up for what you believe is right and having the guts to say so to the people that are jerking the chains. It is the mark of a good admin one, one that thinks with logic. Note it doesn't always work out well for people historically that do that but they get respect nonetheless Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Kevin (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

For your listening pleasure ...

• take the money and run
• ya got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, and know when to run

I hope this comes across the way I intend it to. :-) — Ched :  ?  04:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• rfar

He may be thinking that given the past accolades/"commended" notation for WP:BOLD, that he's uncomfortable with any kind of admonishment at all, and he wants to do some research and think things through. IDK, I'm wondering the same thing - but that thought also crossed my mind. — Ched :  ?  22:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. We shall have to wait and see. Liked the tunes :) Kevin (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Motion to return Kevin's administrator rights

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

Based on his commitment not to reverse any block designated as an oversight-based block [24], Kevin's administrator privileges are reinstated, effective immediately. He is strongly admonished for reversing the block and warned to abide by all applicable policies governing the conduct of administrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Your administrator permissions have been restored by User:X!. AGK [•] 17:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious

biographies of living persons
Thank you for taking care of the correct sourcing for BLPs, with care and attention, patience and diligence, and for treating editors as living persons, following the spirit of policy rather than letter, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! It's been a while though, might be something to look back into. Kevin (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Treating editors was most recent ;) - long-term goals and achievements should be kept in mind, I have "Every editor is a human being" on my user for more than a year now, to stay, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Request unprotection of Fidel Castro

Hello. Three years ago, on 25 January 2010, you protected the article Fidel Castro. I would like to request that the article be unprotected. Thank you. 24.22.75.14 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not comfortable unprotecting this article. Last time the vandalism returned instantly, and there is nor reason to think the same will not happen again. You could add {{editprotected}} to the talk page with your suggested edits. Kevin (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider another unblock?

Hi Kevin. I watched the events unfold since you unblocked Cla68. I think that generally any admin should be able to unblock an oversight admin block to the extent he can tell what happened and ascertain policy-violating edits are unlikely to reoccur. Otherwise it's just an ego thing. "Do not diminish the size of my ego by daring to undo my block." And I think this is proved by the reblock as "don't unblock without ArbCom permission." In other words it's now demonstrably about hierarchy and not any supposed heinousness that's only viewable via oversight. Anyhow, since you've demonstrated guts by your handling of the response, and now I note unchastened because you're pushing even now for Cla68's block to be lifted, maybe you'll have a look at my case.

I was no-warn no-discussion blocked by Timotheus Canens for sockpuppetry last May. It's simply not true. I cleanstarted once because of harassment, never went back. I've always been straight-up about it, even from edit #1[25]. My defenses were never replied to, and my appeals were declined for non-policy (don't talk back to an admin, failed to accept BWilkins' offer to accept the divulging of your previous account) as well as counter-policy (must give up your previous account to ArbCom) reasons. If you look over my situation, you'll perhaps think "oh there must be something he's not telling me here" why would ArbCom reject this, but really they never gave any responsive answer to me, no evidence, no nothing, just this laughable without explanation "carefully considered, declined to unblock." For the first appeal I was told though it would be denied because Timotheus Canens had not responded to its query. By the time of the second, he was an arb and chose not to recuse. Forgive me, it's cartoon-like.

Anyhow, should you undertake to help me out somehow, all I can say is I'll play it straight with you. Not knowing what else to do, I did resort to clearly-disclosed block evasion. In other words, IP edits that I sign my ID to. Other than the fact they're evades, I've conformed to policy, I think. There was one where I was mistaken about jargon, and my aggravation was apparent in another, but overall I've tried to live up to the project's spirit. Here's some examples [26][27][28]. You do have to entertain the proposition that block evasion can possibly be justifiable. Consider the article of a young actress said without attribution (and maybe with) to have contracted herpes. The blocked editor is still supposed to take it out. WP:BLP trumps WP:EVADE. Justifiable block evasion. I'm not that noble in my situation don't get me wrong, but I say that in the absence of any evidence or explanation to support my block (and this there has never been) it is justifiable block evasion. Thanks. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.120.50 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I've had a look. I see your latest block is by one of our esteemed Arbitrators, which rules out me taking any part. I was willing to give up my sysop bit for Cla68, but I won't for you. Kevin (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't fault you for that. You looked, which is more than most bother to do. I think you read the block log incorrectly, what SilkTork did there was to stuff my talkpage under an "extended" label that must be clicked on to see the entirety. He didn't block me though. I was only blocked by "Timotheus Canens" who called me sockpuppet, and by UltraexactZZ who faulted me for not accepting Bwilkins'[29] supposed privacy-preserving offer to examine my previous account in exchange for his forbearance not to immediately cut me off from my talkpage. I was confused myself though, so I asked an arb whether ArbCom's declining of my block appeal transformed it into an "ArbCom block," to which he said "no, we have no monopoly on appeals." By "esteemed" I can't tell if you're being ironic, but I can say that SilkTork informed me in the sixth or so day of my appeal that it would be declined if Timotheus failed to respond to ArbCom's query about it. Which makes makes me tend to unesteem SilkTork. But, Kevin, by my thinking, one in a position of authority can't just go by those he esteems, he has has to examine the facts and the rules, and there I can again assure you that those don't support my block, and that anyone who says I've socked or been dishonest in any way... well the strongest I can respond to that out-person is it's just not so. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.6.135 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Give him ALL the barnstars

For taking the correct action in a situation where others either didn't have the nerve to, didn't feel the need to, or didn't want to. Ryan Vesey 03:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Bravo. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, this was the correct decision. It is a shame that on Wikipedia, what is obviously correct to any normal human being is a hotly debated topic and a motion to ban the person who pointed out the situation gets about 50/50 support. --B (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A few centuries ago, it would have been "obviously correct" to ban someone for being an atheist. So, the only way to really tell if something is correct is to have a rational debate about it. Count Iblis (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Because clearly there's no difference between being an atheist and hosting a child pornography website. Being an atheist impacts only your own soul (or, I suppose, the atheist would argue, nothing whatsoever), whereas child pornography necessarily requires the exploitation and abuse of children. If your argument is that cultural mores are evolving and therefore should not exist, even to the point of accepting child abuse, then I strongly disagree with your assertion. It would be nice if Wikipedia didn't feel the need to go out of its way to demonstrate a reprobate moral conscience. --B (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And a rational debate a few centuries ago would likely see the atheist banned. So I'm not sure what your point is. We are all living today, by the laws and social conventions of today. Where pedophilia is universally reviled. And before you leap in with a semantic argument, by pedophile I mean anyone who sexually molests children, traffics or watches kiddy porn, talks about their desire for pubescent kids, or invites minors into their house and gives them porn. None of them have a place here. Kevin (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The mere act of having a rational debate would itself have been seen as heresy. It was precisely a more rational attitude that led to the Age of Enlightenment. Thing is, we keep nasty things like child porn out of here by focussing on building the encyclopedia using the policies we have. With that focus, we can leave it to law enforcement to act against pedophiles if that's necessary. We don't have to ban people simply because they may be criminals, we should leave that to the police, prosecutor, judge and jury. Count Iblis (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your argument to let pedophiles freely interact with children here might be more effective if you made it at the policy page. Kevin (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"we keep nasty things like child porn out of here by focussing on building the encyclopedia using the policies we have" You mean like the policy that says editors who identify themselves as pedophiles will be blocked indefinitely. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I started an RFC about this policy, the issue being that someone can have identified themselves only off-Wiki as a pedophile, which in practice is still grounds for being blocked here. I did not weigh in with my opinion yet there. There are a number of reasons why I think this is a bad idea. If we first focus purely on protecting children here, then one needs to scrutinize innapropriate behavior right here, someone having declared themselves as being sexually attracted to children does not by itself make that person a threat (I know that this is a huge taboo like subject, but research does point to about 1% or so of the population having such sexual feelings to some degree, obviously they are not all dangerous pedophiles. The Devils's Advocate also made that point on AN/I or on Jimbo's talk page). Obviously, it doesn't make much sense for someone with criminal intentions to mark themselves in a way that would lead to greater scrutiny. Another thing is that when it comes to grooming children, there are people involved with this who are not themselves pedophiles, they make and sell child porn pictures for money alone. So, my point is then that we're going about dealing with this problem in the wrong way.

Then when it comes to Wikipedia itself, when we allow arguments like "editors X' opnion on matter Y outed on website Z is not consistent with our social norms", then sooner or later the domain of Y and Z tend to increase in size. So, while today Y is mainly about pedophiles, tomorrow it will also include alleged terrorists, or people seen to be sympathetic to certain groups that many disapprove of, and then some time later you'll end up banning the advocates these people who themselves don't believe in their causes. Also, we can't then argue that other Wikipedia's can't do the same w.r.t. issues they feel strongly about but with which we strongly disagree about. Count Iblis (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The person in question did say on Wikipedia that he ran a child pornography FTP server in the 1990s. It's not really outing to say that. --B (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

POINTy behaviour

This is getting very close to the line of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please don't do that, especially given that you're an admin. Prioryman (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

THIS is "Pointy"? Now, if someone tried to run a gazillion "Wikipedia controversy" DYKs on the front page over a prolonged period of time, which may or may not be related to private commercial interests to the extent that THAT would be pointy. You've got it flipped.Volunteer Marek 23:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's pointy. Trying to run a DYK that is blatantly noncompliant with WP:BLP, as you yourself have pointed out, is very bad form. Prioryman (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there some part of it that is untrue? Kevin (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the DYK hook is not a public figure and does not use that name on the English Wikipedia. If even Volunteer Marek can see the problems with it, you should be able to as well, and frankly I would expect you to given that you hold a sysop bit. Prioryman (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If even Volunteer Marek can see the problems with it - Prioryman, cut out the personal attacks. I'm pretty sure I have a much better grasp of WP:BLP than you.Volunteer Marek 00:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is in compliance with WP:BLP, which you are probably well aware of. It was the original proposed hook which ran afoul of WP:BLP. I fixed that. You could have, but didn't.Volunteer Marek 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is this Prioryman and why is he so frenetically whinging? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Prioryman may explain a little. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My user page says everything you need to know, and is certainly a lot more useful than the maunderings of off-wiki nutters. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. There's some interesting stuff there on Google. I do think that if one obsesses over off-wiki nutters then some of the nuttery does tend to rub off. Kevin (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, quite. <looks meaningfully at Kevin's off-wiki forum membership> Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

resurrecting an article

Hi Kevin.

I've recently learned a bit about the field of Core Energetics, and I'm excited to finally find a topic where I have some knowledge to give back to Wikipedia after all these years. So I'd like to resurrect and clean up this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meco/sandbox

I've read the history of the page, but I'm unclear why you removed it.

What needs to be cleaned up, and what's the process for this?

Regards,
Harvest316 (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen this article before, User:Jimfbleak moved it, you might ask him what the reason was. Kevin (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Block tags for Meco

I have put a block template on both the user page and talk page of Meco. (User contribution indicates that he has been blocked, which is unfortunate for the article about Jonas Gahr Støre since Meco contributed to the section about the conflict of interest parliamentary hearing in 2012.) --Ship owner symposium (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Rajon Rondo protection

A few years back, you protected the page Rajon Rondo. Perhaps it's time to unprotect it and see what happens. I have trouble seeing his page as an ongoing target for excessive vandalism. Ma^t_chups 15:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Death of Abigail Taylor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Abigail Taylor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Abigail Taylor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the notice. I will go to the discussion page and add my two cents. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Some insights on Abigail Taylor's death

Hi there, I noticed you nominated the Death of Abigail Taylor for deletion. Now I know the article is very confusing and conflicting but I remember hearing a lot about this event so I did some extensive research to try to clarify the confusion. Given the new details I hope you can reconsider your view on this article. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it to be either of those things. I do however disagree that it should remain as a separate article. I've commented at the deletion discussion. Kevin (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Lefevre Peninsula Primary School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lefevre Peninsula Primary School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lefevre Peninsula Primary School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Adelaide Wikipedia Users Group meetings

Hi, in case you're not already aware of it, a group of Adelaide Wikipedians has been meeting on a monthly basis since April, with the aim of improving the scope and quality of articles on South Australian topics. We meet at UniSA's City West campus, and our 23 July meeting will have a guest speaker from the National Trust of SA.

This coming Sunday, 6 July, we will be holding our first Edit-a-thon. This will be an opportunity for new editors to come and learn either basic or more advanced editing from very experienced wikipedians, so if you know anyone who would like to get some practice, please let them know - and beginners will be very welcome. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

biographies of living persons
Thank you for taking care of the correct sourcing for BLPs, with care and attention, patience and diligence, and for treating editors as living persons, following the spirit of policy rather than letter, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 423rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 423rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Tracker poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Tracker poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

biographies of living persons
... you were recipient no. 423 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

six years now - miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Afc b

Template:Afc b has been nominated for merging with Template:Archive bottom. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)