User talk:Kevin
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.
It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)