User talk:Kevin/Archive 1

Maltese Registration Plates

Hey there. You made a small good when you entered the text for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltese Registration Plates. You have to type {{subst:afd2|pg=page_name|text=your reason}} rather than just the reason by itself. Coren 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Coren. I was testing one of the auto afd popups, which didn't do everything properly. Kevin 01:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Day length

I myself did the computation and plotting using standard formulas. It may be considered original, but it is not too much original. It is not very technical, and there are far more technical entries, such as many of those in mathematics. --Roland 04:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If you could put some text as well, to put the image into context for readers that would be useful. I would have a go myself, but I don't know the subject. Kevin 04:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Neil Young Edits

Hi. You accused me of adding nonsense to Wikipedia. You did not give me specific information regarding how I did so, but I can guess it was the Neil Young entry. I changed the description of his voice (alto v. tenor) and style (timbre, falsetto). I did it because I know something about music. I also referred to the MTV performance with Pearl Jam. I did that because I know something about the Seattle music scene (I was part of it). Kevin1243, don't be accusatory; you're not helping Wikipedia. You are going to turn people away who have expertise and relevant knowledge and believe in this mission of this site. Thank you. Mc4932 15:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't those bits, but your description of him performing "underwhelmingly". It seems quite POV, and was unreferenced. It's not our personal knowledge that Wikipedia is looking for, but verifiable, published information. If you can add your knowledge with some references then that's fine. Looking back, your first 3 edits don't look like vandalism at all, and I don't know why I tagged them as such. My apologies. Kevin 00:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point I can't find a good reference for the "underwhelming" performance with Pearl Jam and understand if that word should be deleted. It's too much of a weasel word, no? My data are that I do remember the Seattle Post-Intelligencer commenting on the Neil Young/Pearl Jam performance along those lines (they wrote of our Seattle bands constantly), and I remember my community of friends talking about it. In retrospect, the overall response may have derived from a negative reaction to Pearl Jam, who did not show up for some concert with Nirvana around 1993 or 1994 (which I think ended up broadcast on MTV, perhaps called "Live and Loud" ??). Random Trivia: I was the one who requested and introduced "All Apologies" the very first time KISW ever played it in Seattle. Long time ago! Thanks for your reply, mate. Mc4932 01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kevin/Archive 1! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Eagle talk 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

the epistile of romana

You reverted my edit that was removing a vandalism. Christianity was not and is not a plant.

I see that I reverted because you changed some text to read "Paul", in place of what was there before. Adding your own or someone elses name is typical vandal behaviour I see all the time. Please accept my apologies for this mistake. I've reverted the revert. Kevin 06:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

List of entities with sold naming rights

Hi Kevin,

Regarding list of entities with sold naming rights - Has a previous article with the same scope been deleted in the past? Additionally, what are your concerns regarding the list being unmaintainable, if all entries were referenced, which I will now add? Kurieeto 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists such as this are regularly deleted at AfD discussions, mostly because they can never be complete, ie they should be a list of some entities. Feel free to remove the {{prod}} tag if you like, and I'll move the article to the correct spelling later today. Adding references would be great as well. Kevin 01:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What about for example limiting to scopes such as list of sports venues with sole naming rights? Naming rights generally last for several years, which gives a stability to the subject that I think would allow for encyclopedic cataloguing. The information is also important as it demonstrates any growth/decrease in the sale of naming rights. Kurieeto 02:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as they are the types of places most likely to have sole naming rights, I think that's a good idea. Do you want to do the move, or shall I? Kevin 02:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, I'll take care of it. Thanks for your help, Kurieeto 02:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Force Ten

I don't think this was intended vandalism—see User talk:68.183.194.34. —johndburger 03:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. If nobody creates a stub from the new redlink though, it should probably go. Kevin 03:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hyperactive Forums deletion

I saw that you put a speedy tag on Hyperactive Forums. However, the article does not appear to fit into the criteria for speedy deletion, as there is a claim to notability. If you believe this article should be deleted, you'll need to take it to Articles for Deletion. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 21:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the assertion of notability was added after my speedy tag. Now that it's there it will have to go through AfD, as you say. Kevin 23:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hari Rud

This is Yadav R A S from India . I am interested in research of History in the fields where the people with vested interests have tried to mis lead the generations of humans. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.80.82 (talk • contribs)

I think you are responding to my reversion of Hari Rud (here). I removed your edit because you ended with "This was my personal opinion about the Aryans. Capt R A S Yadav . yadavras@yahoo.co.in". Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions, so your material needs to be re-written from a neutral point of view. Kevin 10:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized

You got hit. Teke 05:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Skull and Bones

Kevin -- I'm glad you've figured out how to use the { { subst:test } } template. Now, please revert the Skull and Bones page to include the picture of Skull and Bones from 1947. This depicts what may be history's most famous Bonesman, GHW Bush. This photo is in the public domain and is highly informative. Besides Bush, it also shows Endicott Peabody Davison. Again, thanks for your attention in monitoring the S&B page. 141.161.48.111 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the page back, and removed the {{subst:test}} message from your talk page. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Kevin 09:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting vandalism done to my page, he was one crazy vandal... yours, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 06:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you fixed his hit on my page as well. Now we can have 48 hours of peace. Kevin 06:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocks

A user can post to their talk page even after they have been blocked. If they start vandalising their talk page, I can have it protected. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course! I'm not sure why I forgot that. Thanks Kevin 07:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

you are a vandal

i got the criticsms of the crap tommorow series from amazon.com you moron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbine (talk • contribs)

We covered this last week on your talk page. I said that I had no objection to your edits as long as they were written from a neutral point of view, and you added references or citations to show your sources. You should also try to remain civil during conversations. Personal attacks do little to advance your cause. Kevin 07:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

• Now Wikipedia:Deletion review#Christian views of Hanukkah
• Was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah

A cautionary tale: Your allegation of a copyvio. As the history shows, the cited page is actually a copy of wikipedia from several months later than the original section, first added in 2004 by User:Chad A. Woodburn! --William Allen Simpson 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Without any date on the homernews.com article it is difficult to see which came first. Perhaps you have some information that I don't. I probably should have written "may be a copyvio", rather than "is a copyvio". My main reason for voting for deletion was that without reliable sources, the article read like original research. Kevin 23:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL rangeblock

Usually, AOL IPs jump around from one page load to the next, but in the 152.* range, they can also be held for a longer period of time. I've unblocked the IP, but most of the time, AOL IPs should not be unblocked, as the vandal will just jump to the unblocked IP, and there's a high amount of collateral damage. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate to see a potential good editor blocked. Kevin 07:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Micoolio101's Photo Album

Okay, you can move it. And while you are at it, do you know a way to keep my images nice and straight instead of them scattered everywhere? If you can then could you fix it up?

Micoolio101 talk

I'm sure the answer lies in using tables. Have a look there and see if it helps. Kevin 08:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert

No probs! Hopefully that will be the last from Carbine and the seven dwarves. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 10:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pai Hsien-yung

What I wrote was true. I don't understand why you revised that "Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Pai Hsien-yung. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Kevin 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.76.136 (talk • contribs)

When you write that someone has a sexual preference for teenagers you will need to back it up with some very reliable refences - see WP:V for more info. Some people might take it as a personal attack. Kevin 06:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just added resources

Hello, you wrote me not to post commercial links, but I just added the links where readers could find interviews with those artists on a site which is freely created like Wikipedia with no commercial intention. Thought they would be useful resources for the readers who wanted to know more about those artists. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmaz (talk • contribs)

The links you added (www.clubbity.com) fall into the category of sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. This site clearly is a booking agency for entertainment. Kevin 22:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually we are simply a music portal that spreads music information without any revenue at all, that booking agency is just a section which was at first setup as extra but is not functioning. Our only aim is to freely distribute contents as you can see from the comments in our press & pr section. if we profiting from it you'd see commercial banners there which are not present, those on are just to promote our internal contents. Thank you.

OK. If it's as you say then go ahead and replace the links, as long as your content is relevant to the article being added to. Kevin 10:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, all the links posted were strictly relevant to the article as they were giving direct access to interviews with the artists which would only add to Wikipedia's content. Thank you.

My RFA

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA, regardless of how you voted. I appreciate all votes. I am going to wait until I have more edits in all namespaces. (And also improve answering impossible questions ;). Hopefully one day I will be more sucessful than it was looking, once I meet most user's voting standards. Again, thanks for your time! Also, if I may add, where have I jumped in to use test3? I had been using blatantvandal on some vandalism I thought was entirely to harm Wikipedia, but I need to know so I can pay better attention.~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Maria Amelia Teresa of the Two Sicilies

You reverted the change about "Louis-Philippe king of the French" to the previous "Louis-Philippe king of France".

I'm sorry, but calling him "king of France" is an error: he was never titled that way, you can check. He was titled "king of the French". It was his official title, given to him by the French Chamber of Deputies in August 1830 when he was voted king, and that title was politically significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.120.170 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've replaced your edit, and removed the {{subst:test}} from your talk page. Kevin 10:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Xu Gong

Yes, I indeed do have a source. The source that my information thrives from is through the video game, Romance of the Three Kingdoms X official potrait listing. In this listing Koei gives biographies of ever known person of old during the Three Kingdoms period. Most of the information that is said in this listing is based off of history rather than information attained through the novel.

I thank you for asking, and farewell.

-Darin Fidika —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darin Fidika (talk • contribs)

So is this a fictional character? You need to put a source in the article, so that readers know where the information came from. Kevin 01:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Fox Lane Players

Oops...stupid AfD helper. Oh well. Looks like it's been deleted already anyway. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted

That was an accident, I put the removed part of the article back straight away 203.211.70.44 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what happened there - someone else reverted your mistake, but I put the warning on your page. Vandalproof works in strange ways sometimes. I'll remove the notice from your talk page. Kevin 06:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Carbine

Hmm, I was wondering if he was well after going a day without creating another Smugface to vandalize our userpages (have you noticed that he likes to call me Kevin as well?). I blocked the dwarf; User:Dfrg.msc looked to be a likely sock as well, but I'm not 100% sure. Checkuser could confirm it for us, but let's wait to see if he goes back to using this account. Thanks for the note. Tijuana Brass^E@ 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

dear kevin you can never crush the dwarfs. Dfrg is solo. aint one of mine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mugface the incandesent dwarf (talk • contribs) .

Sockpuppet?

I find that offencive, you admisitrators, bloated and drunk with power. So suspicous! So anyway mate please take it off, your dirtying up my rag.

Dfrg.msc 07:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

deAR kevin

yes i am the lindenburg baby but i am not a sock puppeter i am carbine i am a good wikipeadian. i did not vandilise your page i have been away latly and i just seen these lies take them off my user page. it was clean to you got there. you ! user: carbine

Heh, right. So, anyways, I'm semi-protecting your user and talk pages for a few days to give Carbine some time to figure out other ways of entertaining himself online. Since I'll be out of town for about a week starting tomorrow, I'm leaving a note on another admin's talk page to take it off so you won't have to wait for me to get back. Hope things are going well in the land down under, where beer does flow and men chunder. Tijuana Brass^E@ 17:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It will stop any socks anyway. I'm only here intermittently for the next few days as well, so I've been missing some of this. Kevin 21:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

take the bias out of tommorow criticms

Kevin do it Take the criticisms and get rid of the bias then. on the tommorow page. it needs critcisms and you should have your say then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbine (talk • contribs)

Getting Closer

Hello Kevin1243. I'm working with all of the criticism thrown at me duirng my RFA. I am now being a lot more careful with RC-Patrol, and no longer biting. ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply before, I've been very involved in a project outside Wikipedia. On RC patrol it can be hard not to get angry and go too far. I try and use a set level of warning of {{Template:test1}} for inoffensive vandalism if the IP has no warnings that day, and {{Template:test2}} if they use offensive language. I use the assumption that an IP editor is likely to be a different guy to yesterday's vandal. Are you going through RFA again soon? Kevin 09:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

More than likely no. I'm not going to accept another nomination until August, assuming I have at least 5,000 edits. I'm just trying to learn from my mistakes. :) ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Socks

Yo bro, seroiusly could you remove the suspected sock puppet thing. The socks are getting dirty. Carbine and I, share the same veiws, exept I use punctuation and grammar (Im working on the spelling). And why would any one impersonate him??

Thanks

Dfrg.msc 04:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

I am not writing my opinions, I am writing facts. What is written on Puerto-Rio is not only opinion, but also fiction. If we are supposed to be able to edit and add things, why is it that when certain people do not like what is edited, you want to make excuses? Do you own research before you assume. You are in a far away land and do not have first-hand knowledge as we do sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.24.89 (talk • contribs)

Hoodie

I'd argue that adding Moral panic to the hoodie article doesn't constitute vandalism, especially considering the "Social fear" section. The anon simply got the capitalisation wrong. I'm adding the link to the article again for now.Cohen the Bavarian 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks

Kevin/Archive 1, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

yo brudda

i think that a criticims of the tommorow series is important but with NPOV. I think we can do this if we coperate.

PS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.30.135 (talk • contribs)

Proofreading

"It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from Proofreading. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you." - I just edited that page, removing content for the reasons I specified clearly in the article's talk page. If you have a problem with that, that's fine - but please discuss it there, addressing the points made. Please don't be so hasty to revert valid edits - check the talk page first! 64.103.37.72 11:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Must be an AOL IP - seems to be moving around. Kevin 11:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PO!

How am i a sock puppet to carbine. How????? Carbine is dead they were blocked there dead how can i copy a dead person! anyway take the filth of my page its dirtying it up.

File:Unquestioned Goat.jpg

Reversion

Sorry about reverting the vandalism back on to your user page. Not sure if I mis-clicked or something went a bit wonky with the tool I'm using since you reverted before I did. I reverted my reversion, though. -- Fordan 12:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats OK. You probably clicked 2 seconds after me. Kevin 12:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Double Standards

Hi Kev. I draw your attention to the article on the Melbourne University Football Club. Some of the comments used by users in the deletion/merge of the Adelaide University Lacrosse Club article seem to also apply to this page. Talk:Melbourne_University_Football_Club. I am being provocative on this matter as I perceive there to be double standards on Wikipedia.

What do you think? Ozdaren 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

whats the point?

It's not like i'm going to win, and I have been watching that page, you guys are very unwilling to copromise. 69.179.102.211 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being really rude and not replying. 69.179.102.211 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was away while you were expecting a reply. You should read the Wikipedia policy on civility before you make comments like this. You haven't proposed a compromise that I can see. I've already suggested that you go to the talk page. Kevin 06:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I did instead of deleting the info I moved it down and it was instantly reverted by KimvdLinde. 69.179.102.211 13:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because it is a very important piece of information that is very well at place where it is. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Asian Supremacy

You voted to delete the article Asian supremacy because you felt it was unverifiable. It is verifiable. The organization Goldsea supports Asian supremacy.--Dark Tichondrias 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Che!

I award you this - (non-free image removed)

Q: Are you Kevin from "The Tomorrow Series"?

Dfrg.msc 08:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. If you mean have I been removing yours and User:Carbine's POV critique of the series. Kevin 08:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Duel Academy

Hello Kevin, you recently tagged the Duel Academy article for deletion. However, I'm afraid I won't be able to do so as I have no prior record of it being deleted before. Would you clarify the reason why you want it speedy deleted? I might be able to better assist that way. Thanks, Pilot|guy 14:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The log shows here that it's been deleted before. The AfD debate is here. Kevin 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted and protected it. --Pilot|guy 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1930 British Empire Games

Just for the record - Northern Ireland did not take part in the 1930 British Empire Games. In 1930 there was a team from "Ireland" using the green flag of Ireland. In 1934 Northern Ireland took part, as did a team from the Irish Free State. Thereafter only teams from Northern Ireland have taken part. I presume your source is CGF website - which is full of inaccuracies. My source is "The Commonwealth Games - The History of all the Sports" by Bob Phillips, pub 2002. You are not the first person to be misled by the CGF website. Best regards Rhyddfrydol 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I only merged the articles and did brief fact checking in the hope that someone like yourself would come along later. If you have a decent resource you may like to look at the later Games also. Kevin 22:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

G4 speedies

G'day Kevin,

thanks for your message. I'd like to assure you that my closing of this AfD was in no way meant as a criticism of you (thanks, by the way, for removing the AfD tag from the article in question). I was criticising the "let's do something silly because policy says so" idea, though. If you don't think an article should be deleted, you're under no obligation to say "hey, let's delete this". This applies to tagging speedies, PROD, AfD, the works.

As for tips on G4 for non-admins, well ... okay, I've got it. You can see the deletion log for all articles, right? Any admin who knows what he's doing will include a link to the AfD when deleting an article because of an AfD discussion. If the deletion log contains no mention of AfD, then, no matter what, the article is not a G4 candidate. If there is an AfD listed, then go ahead and tag it — the admin can do the legwork in checking the old version against the new version and the AfD. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Turnbull & Asser

In the AFD discussion you said: "Policy is policy, right?". Deletion policy says that articles need a valid reasoning to be deleted. It was rewritten to indicate notability so it's not a valid G4 speedy. I can't see anything else that would require deletion. Can you? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

CSD G4 states that a substantially identical recreation is valid criteria for speedt deletion, except where it was speedied or prodded previously. As I am not an admin I don't have the ability to look into the deleted article history to check the content, and in this case the deleting admin left no message in the log to say if it was speedied or not. I tagged it so that an admin could check and either delete or remove the tag as they saw fit. My tag had nothing to do with notability or the quality of the article, just a desire to make sure that the article wasn't recreated against CSD G4. What would you have done? Kevin 10:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think an article needs to be nominated for deletion if notability has been asserted when a previously deleted version didn't do anything of the kind. Unfortunately there's too many people who don't check if it's really a recreation or just forget about the prod or speedy clauses. IIRC, you can check the previous reason in the deletion log and see if it still applies. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the Afc!?

I wondered why it was so empty. Nice work catching that before anymore damage was done.--Andeh 09:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It desperately needs archiving - but every time I start I run into an edit conflict. I'll try again in a couple of hours. Kevin 09:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

		Well spotted!
		Thanks for spotting the blanking on AFC. I thought it was simply archived recently (stupid me ;). Here you go! Have a well-deserved barnstar. - Mgm

Latin America

Hi kevin, I was editing "Latin america for "parts of latin america", and I was about to post references. Because that doesn't happen in countries like Argentina or Uruguay, where people refer to them according to their ethnicities (both countries are melting pots). And many people considered white in other countries of Latin AMerica aren't consider white there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.218.25 (talk • contribs)

My apologies if I reverted part way through a sequence of edits. I've removed the note from your talk page. Kevin 09:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square

Hi Kevin,

whats the problem with this?

It is now generally accepted that few,if any , students were killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. There was violent confrontation between the citizens of Beijing and the army in the streets leading to the Square and there were deaths and injuries here. The Tiananmen Square Massacre Myth was a creation of the Western Media subsequently used to damage the CPR in the West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.185.192 (talk • contribs)

If it is "generally accepted" then it shouldn't be a problem to put up some reliable sources for your comments. Kevin 10:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon crisis 2006

Thanks for your attention to the article. I thought you might also be interested in contributions by 84.160.82.8 who is removing relevant information that is not comfortable for Lebanese point of view, and also adding original research (as in a case of "civilian infrastructure"), while neither leaving edit comments nor using talk page.

closing AfDs

Kevin, I've noticed you've been closing some AfD's. Traditionally, this is left to admins, except for a narrow range of circumstances, which you've usually been inside. I don't think anyone would disagree with your closing Trillion Dollar Bill or that List of Supreme Court Cases, but Jayme Tiomno may have been an improper closure. Deletion discussions usually last five days (although admins occasionally close them faster) and withdrawal by nominator is not usually a valid reason when there are deletion votes remaining (I learned this one the hard way). Anyway, just try to keep this in mind in the future. Cheers!--Kchase T 10:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curoius, but where did you get bitten over an improper closure? I didn't see anything on your talk pages. I think the keep votes plus the withdrawal probably sway the balance in my favour, but I will keep your advice in mind. Thanks --Kevin 10:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually asked a bureaucrat (Essjay) about it. I didn't really get bitten. The worst that could happen is that an admin will reopen it or someone will take it to deletion review. It'll probably just stay closed, though.--Kchase T 10:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane Birralee Voices

HI, thx for pulling me up, i was waiting to see how long it would be till someone did. THX. I have rewritten the text and as far as i believe it does not violate any copywrite.

Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Barram (talk • contribs)

Peter Watson (Peterwats)

Kevin I have been on wikipedia for a long time. I have had over 200 diffrent user names. I have dit over 10,000o ages. I realy wanting to become a administrater okay. I am going to post a nother nomination for the last time. If that one fails I will give up and try some ting elcs like a buracrat. Best luck Peter Watson.

Good luck then. Kevin 09:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this remind you of anybody? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 09:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It all seems sadly familiar doesn't it. I'm beginning to think a spelling test at sign-up might be a good idea. :) -- Kevin 10:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter Wats (peterwats)

Okay , okay and okay. I will stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterwats (talk • contribs)

Highway's RfA

Flower power!

Request for Adminship

---

Thank you for contributing to my my request for adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a withdrawn vote count of 14/27/14, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and keeping cool under stress. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 13:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Poorly sourced?

Do you want the audio tape authenticated first? 68.0.118.116 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. I saw that the tmz.com article said they had a police report and a tape, but I still feel that until there is more mainstream coverage that the quote should be left out. I don;'t see why there is such a rush to include the info right this minute. Kevin 00:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't intent to get into an edit war over this, but I do feel stongly that per WP:BLP we should have absolutely reliable sources for this info. I'm not saying that the quote is false, but until better sources come along, which they inevitabely will, we should leave it out. Kevin 00:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How about THIS source?

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/exclusive-no-cover-up-la-county-sheriffs-malibulost-hills-station-reports-contain-anti-semitic-slurs-allegedly-made-by-mel-gibson-during-dui-arrest/

Come on, that just uses the tmz.com article as it's source. I was thinking more like CNN, or the New York Times. Kevin 00:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your charge on Jim Shapiro

I did not call your edit vandalism. Gfwesq and I are not the same person. Please see the talk page. From what Gfwesq stated he was told, it did appear as if your edit was vandalism. Once again, though, I did not make that statement.jawesq 08:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything. I am aware of who made the "vandalism" statement and the point in the discussion where I responded to that was the end of the particular thread when I edited. To me, it seems clear who I was responding to - the person who wrote "please don;t vandalise" 2 lines above my response. Kevin 09:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. You call for assuming good faith, and you accuse me of having an agenda. "I think there needs to be an assumption of good faith, that everyone involved in this is trying to improve Wikipedia, not push their own agenda.""my comments re an agenda were to explain that the editors and admins (excluding Gfwesq and jawesq) most likely do not have an agenda relating to the article".. And of course, if I reply, I am uncivil.

As for the WP:NN taag, you are right, I see I read too quickly -AC said to put in on the afd page. You, of course, removed it without much of a comment as to why you removed it and you certainly left me no explanation. Naturally I thought it was vandalism. Maybe you thought the move was self explanatory. Here's what I thought. After being instructed (and misreading the instructions) to place the WP:NN tag, I looked the tag up. I read it. The instructions with the tag said include explanation. So I placed the tag with an explanation. You came along and moved, stating only that you moved it, but not why. If it was self evident to you that it did not belong on the aticle itself, it wasn't to me and perhaps you should have included an explanation on the discussion page. For example, this tag according to (link to rule,policy, whatever) should only be placed on talk pages, or Afd pages. Then I might have some idea of why you did what you did. Perhaps I went too far in calling it vandalism, but without an adequate explanation that is what it looked like to me. I honestly thought you vandalized the page and I put it back. You may not have liked my explanation of my action, but you got one.

My only reason for the afd was to improve Wikipedia. Shapiro is a run of the mill late night advertising PI lawyer. (using the Donald Rumsfeld format here) Is it sleazy? I think so, I think most people who see it, think so. He has a 1st amendment right (US Constitution) to advertise. His bar association can place reasonable restrictions on his advertising within the parameters of the Supreme Court's decision in these matters. Do I think he oversteped the rules? I am not familar with the NY Bar's rules so I can't say. Assuming he is, is it notable? No. Is Shapiro otherwise notable? No (see afd comments). Does an article on a non-notable lawyer improve Wikipedia? I don't think so. Would removing it improve Wikipedia? Yes. Is there a Wiki rule of speedy deletion for admins regarding bio's of living persons that are unsourced and negative in tone? Yes and I think it should be applied. Why should there an exception for a non-notable lawyer? Because he is sleazy? I don't think that is the purpose of Wikipedia. That is my only "agenda". Without knowing me, or having much of an interaction with me, you accuse me of having "an agenda." That is a pejorative as the term is commonly understood. Generally pejoratives aren't considered civil and certainly the use of the term agenda does not imply the assumption of good faith you demand of me.

Now you just got a lot more explanation from me of my motivation for my actions than I from you. Gfwesq 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say that you had an agenda? My first comment reads everyone involved in this is trying to improve Wikipedia, not push their own agenda, so I'm saying that I don't assume anyone has an agenda. I then explained further that I was saying that the admins involved had no particular agenda with Jim Shapiro, only with following policy, and I specifically excluded you from that comment. If you read the WP:AN page you will see that I have no interest in keeping this article, only in making sure that we follow policy. Is it just me, or is this all a storm in a teacup? Kevin 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"my comments re an agenda were to explain that the editors and admins (excluding Gfwesq and jawesq) most likely do not have an agenda relating to the article" I believe you are quoted accurately. The sentence suggests there are two parties, those without an agenda and those with. Jawesq and I are clearly identified as those with an agenda because we are specifically excluded from those who do not have an agenda. If that is not what you intended, then I accept your apology for the unintended attack. Hopefully you understand my position and I am sorry if we had a late night misunderstanding. Perhaps you could reword your original comment accordingly. This may be a tempest, but you have inadvertently "poisoned the well". Gfwesq 17:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to reword, Shapiro was speedily deleted.Gfwesq 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter Wats

Okay okay.

Be more up front

Next time explain that you are the reason an image is not being used on any page. It took me forever to remember what page was using the image in question, and I presumed you did not know as you had stumbled accross the picture - except you're the one who took it off the article.

The image is now fair use - it's a magazine cover and is covered by one of the categories as it illustrates Friend with her trophies, which the article now discusses. So I am reverting. Next time be more up front...I don't appreciate it when people pretend. Dankru 12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretend to what? Sorry if I upset you by not saying which page the image was on. I have been using {{fairusedisputed}} on these images, but I get almost no response, and then I have to remember to go back and remove them from articles. You're right though - I should post everything I have done. Unfortunately there's no template though, and I hate typing. Kevin 12:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Category linking

[1] When linking to a category, instead of trying to make the page a member of that category, please prefix the category name with a colon: In other words, instead of [[Category:Fair use review requested]] please use [[:Category:Fair use review requested]] instead. That keeps the page you're posting on from becoming part of that category. This also works to link to images instead of displaying them. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dfrg.msc

I noticed you put a notice on User:Dfrg.msc's user page. Please tell me what he has done abusive and i'll help you with the situation, cheers —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I placed this [2] sockpuppet tag in May when User:Dfrg.msc and User:Carbine made identical edits to the Tomorrow series. I removed that tag 4 days later [3] when it seemed more likely that they were just friends pushing the same POV. None of the more recent tags are mine. Kevin 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sydney

That's just the work of a troll, the recently-blocked User:Jackp, using an IP address. Parks in Sydney shouldn't be an article, anyway. michael ^talk 12:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Darksailormercury.jpg

Hi! I noticed that problem too, when I added that info. Unfortunately, I didn't actually upload the image, and have no idea what publication that is. I guess we could try to reach the original uploader, but then, they probably just found it online. So I'll look around for the source, but it's definately possible that we may need something else. (And that may be a good thing--it's kind of an awkward size and shape for the article anyway.) --Masamage 15:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Meetup on 24th August 2006

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but the Inaugural Adelaide Meetup will take place on Thursday 24th of August at Brougham Place Uniting Church, thanks to Alex Sims. Please indicate if you will attend or not.

This message left by May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) on behalf of [ælfəks], 09:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I will. Kevin 21:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane Birralee Voices

Hi again, could you check out Brisbane Birralee Voices page again and see what you think. Thanks for you input.

Matthew Barram 12:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Meetup on 23rd April 2007

Hi Kevin1243,

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but I'd like to let you know that the second Adelaide Meetup will take place on Monday 23rd of April at ZUMA Caffe, 56 Gouger Street, Adelaide. The meeting is at 7:30am for breakfast with Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 2 for more details and indicate if you might attend.

Thanks,–cj | talk 13:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
NB: The above message is being delivered to users who are listed at WikiProject Adelaide or in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia with AutoWikiBrowser.