User talk:Black Kite/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grundle2600: continued problems

This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vampire redirects

I was wondering, would it make sense to redirect Temple of the Vampire to I Love a Mystery since it's very close to the title Temple of the Vampires which already directs there? I am wondering if possibly some people ever pluralize it like 'deer' where an 's' is not added or if it's a plausible typo. Tyciol (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh and I have redirects for 3 characters in the Legacy of Kain vampire series. Bridenal could redirect to Moebius as it was the working name for him and doesn't seem to be used for any other purpose. It's shorter to type since the name Moebius has other uses and 'the timestreamer' is not needed. Similarly, Audron can go to Janos since he's the only guy who shows up for all 10 pages which a mention of Audron in it. Also I was hoping to direct Sarafan Lord, Hylden General, & Dark Entity to this one. Hylden Lord & Hash'ak'gik should also go there but were previously deleted (I think someone had made a separate page for the guy instead of directing to this list entry) so I am inquiring to the mod who deleted them to get permission first. If so, would all 6 of these redirects work? Tyciol (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Tyciol, if there are no entries for these obscure characters in this obscure episode of this obscure tv series, then don't bother making redirects. People can search on the series title or the episode title - that's enough. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:All plot

Template:All plot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image deletion

I noticed you've removed the images from article List of minor characters in Judge Dredd‎. Not that I would expect you to know this without being informed, but the copyright owner, Rebellion Developments, has given permission for the art published within Judge Dredd Megazine and 2000AD to be used here at Wikipedia. This was also detailed within the fair use rationales of these images. The Cake is a Lie T / C 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Eric Lichaj

Hi. As the deleter of Eric Lichaj, could you restore his page now that he has made his professional debut[1], thereby fulfilling notability guidelines for footballers? --Balerion (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem

I was sort of playing with this article here Ryu Goto and the thing is i can't direct back to the original state anymore; could you please please help me! thanks so much! Nobrag1 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just don't do it again!!! I've stopped anything redirecting to The Domestic Sheep and tagged both the The Domestic Sheep redirect and its talk page for speedying (unfortunately, not having the tools, I can't do it myself, but at least no-one will put in Ryu Goto and end up at The Domestic Sheep. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP

BK, it is very very rare that I challenge a non-consensus close (in fact I am on record a few hours earlier at Deletion Review saying it usually makes no sense to do so), but when you closed this there was literally nobody except the person who proposed the deletion arguing to delete. You said there was no consensus to delete. If there is no consensus to delete the result is keep. If there is no consensus on what the result is, then it's non consensus. And in any case, a unanimous keep is pretty clear consensus to me. Please think again about this. (even though your final thought about what should be done is just what I suggested myself) DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Breach of Rules on British Isles

Hi Black Kite, oh holidays are just too short! User:MidnightBlueMan breached the agreed rule here where he undid an edit dating back to last July, without references. --HighKing (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that this edit [2] was carried out by HighKing while not logged on. I don't blame him for not logging on - I often forget myself, but his action was the first to breach "the rules" and I was merely restoring the stable version of the article, albeit a version that was superseded last July. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It may have been stable, but it also appears to be wrong. Replied on your talk. Black Kite 13:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Claiming you are restoring to a "stable" version of the article is just the current excuse to attempt to circumvent the rules. I'm not 100% sure that I made that edit, but I think I did - even so, it was made because the original text is unreferenced. Black Kite has made it very clear that all edits involving removal or insertion of "British Isles" must be backed up with references - a rule that you and others see fit to ignore. I see you've restored your text in an attempt to edit war also. I'll simply await Black Kite's return here and hope he decides to uphold the rules that some of us are trying hard to work within - this is not the first time you've attempted to circumvent the rules, and I believe a short block may not be in order - not up to me though, it's up to BK. The correct thing to do would have been to take it to the SE page, where we discuss this stuff. --HighKing (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Having now gone back over MBM's recent edits, it appears he has made more than one edit in breach of the rules. Tap (valve) and Full breakfast have also been edited in breach of the rules. What are you going to do? --HighKing (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Both of these were recently changed from British Isles. See Tap (valve) and Full breakfast. I have never inserted the term. I only restore it after zealots have removed it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but the rules were made patently clear, and your continued breaches of the rules and sticking the proverbial two fingers up at those who are trying to work within the rules cannot be allowed to continue to go unnoticed and without sanction. The disruptive manner you clearly prefer to engage in serves no purpose than to be disruptive for the sake of it. These rules were clearly and patiently explained, yet you continue to breach the rules. You are aware of the Specific Examples page, and you've brought some items there yourself for discussion, so you really have no grounds for arguing that you didn't know or weren't aware. Finally, you continue to attack the editor (me) and not the edits or content. It was also made very clear that engaging in the old habits of previous behaviour would not be tolerated, but you continue to do so. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll need to fully agree to use the Specific Examples page before ya'll add/remove BI from any articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

BK, you mentioned a short while ago that a Request for Arbitration could be considered in regard to the continuing attempts to remove British Isles from Wikipedia by some editors. Can you further advise on this? Would you be able to commence proceedings, or is it up to others to do so? If the latter, have you a model that can be used? Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

BK, I'm still wondering why this editor is still able to edit.... --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It would be useful if you could find the time to take a look at the various debates here and comment. At the moment attempts to get some balance into this debate just meet with intransigence. --Snowded TALK 17:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

What is the reasoning behind a 31-hour block as opposed to a 24-hour block? Do you know?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So a 31-hour block is just a polite way of issuing a 2-day block? :) --Ramdrake (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Response re Verbal

I received your note on my talk page. The following diff is what I believe to constitute canvasing. Canvasing is defined as sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Such canvasing is inappropriate where the content is biased or partisan. The referenced diff is both biased and partisan. Verbal initially attempted to justify his action by saying he was simply participating in an open discussion. However, the discussion had been closed (or inactive) for 16 days before Verbal added the referenced diff. This strikes me as inappropriate canvasing that warrants the inclusion of the “not a ballot” template on the discussion. I also note that in this diff, Verbal conceded that: "Apparently my edit here above is inappropriate canvassing." Also, in this diff, Verbal has asked a "keep" voter how he/she had become aware of the debate and raised his own concerns about canvasing, apparently by the "Keep" side. By all accounts, I think the inclusion of the "not a ballot" template is prudent to ensure the integrity of the debate. Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Siling labuyo---your reasoning please?

Hello I just wanted to ask how you arrived at the conclusion that merging was the consensus? You stated "I have closed it as merge to Thai pepper so that further discussion can take place as to whether these actually are the same thing. If it can be proved that they're not, then no merge need take place." I have already cited a source listing siling labuyo as capsicum chinense. For comparison the tabasco pepper and Thai pepper are commonly seen as capsicum frutescens. Logically if siling labuyo which I've cited as capsicum chinense should be merged into Thai pepper, tabasco which no one seems to be debating as a capsicum frutescens should be as well. In any event shouldn't the critical piece of evidence cited to resolve this dispute be one affirming and proving the relationship and not one disproving it? Would you accept that siling labuyo and Thai pepper are different if no one steps forward to show that they are the same? I don't see anyone who has. I don't see anyone so far producing the citation showing that siling labuyo=Thai pepper. How long a time period would be a reasonable amount of time for someone to produce such a source before it would be all right for me to consider the merger as not continuing and the merge notice respectfully removed? Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about the matter a little more Black Kite and think I should take an even stronger stand. The consensus was that verifiability is what is important. JL 09 has done nothing but make assertions unsupported by verifiable sources. The entries on the Wikipedia articles he cites on "Thai pepper" and "capsicum frutescens" are almost entirely without sources and specifically without sources regarding this issue. Despite 7 days for a discussion and debate on this point JL 09's assertion remains unsupported by any reliable source. A merger notice only serves to perpetuate the claimed but still unsupported link between siling labuyo and Thai pepper. Since you were the one to close the AfD I request that you reverse the notices for merger until such time evidence can be presented to support JL 09's claim. 1 edit to add hyperlinks. Lambanog (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation.

Your experience and work here is greatly appreciated, and I just wanted to thank you for your quality contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A redirect for deletion

Hi - I ran across a redirect added by Tyciol that needs to be deleted. Since you did some work regarding his many redirects, I thought you might want to handle this one. The redirect is at Frits - it's a Dutch first name that he redirected it to a page for a person who happens to have that first name. There are many people with that first name, so the redirect makes no sense. Do you want to delete it, or would you prefer that I put a PROD tag on the redirect page? Thanks --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel

Hi -- re your close of this AfD, I'd just like to make sure you're aware of the hundreds of news hits this guy now has. It doesn't come up under Yaakov Teitel -- but if you search under Jack Teitel you get loads [3]. I can see deleting under NOTNEWS etc. But sooner or later (and probably sooner) we're going to end up with an article on this guy, given the extensive coverage. And BLP1E won't be a problem, given the many different actions he is getting coverage for. Anyway, the name issue is my only real point here, and perhaps you're already aware of it. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the article had already been brought to AN/I, I've discussed your close there [4] -- it will need to go to deletion review if you do not revert and let it go the full time. If it weren't BLP, I;d have simply reverted the close as an obviouscase where speedy delete is not appropriate. What criterion do you claim it met? I see on talk:Nomoskedasticity's page you claim it's NOT NBREWS, but where is that stated as cause for a speedy? DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks for re-opening. i don;t know whether it will be kept--I find our practices on subjects of this sort utterly erratic--but at least it will be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

DrV

Hi Black Kite, Ignoring how I feel about that close, I think you broke the page. The DrV is so long and it had been moved out of the main DrV page because of that. You might want to fix it or ask someone else to. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I moved your closing rationale to the subpage and re-transcluded it. The trick is to wrap both {{subst:drt}} (this includes the closing rationale) and {{subst:drb}} in <onlyinclude> tags so that they transclude, but not the discussion. :) Tim Song (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

On the Shankbone DRV. I wouldn't have closed it as you had (:D), but that is as concise and considered a close as I have seen in quite a while. Here's hoping you survive the inevitable request for head-on-pole,  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree, well done. There's a number of ways the closing admin could have gone about framing the DRV close (as was the case for the AfD) but your route was clearly a legitimate one (hopefully many of those who disagree with your decision will acknowledge that). Thanks for stepping up to the plate in a difficult situation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Good enough. You closed it the same way I would have, although with a significantly different rationale and comments. Your ninja-ing of the close did save me at least a half-hour of my life tonight, so thanks for that. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Since I'm now being hassled for closing it early (UTC/UTC+1, meh), if you'd like to close it instead... Black Kite 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Uh, no, you're fine. I hope you didn't take my comment as hassling you. It was just a bit of a joke because I was fully intending to close that, but I was also serious that I appreciated not having to close it. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Heh, no, don't worry :) Black Kite 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A sound close. Good work. AGK 00:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A reasonable close which I strongly disagree with (if that makes any sense at all). Good job. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Good job, indeed. It's nice to see all sides lining up to say that :) But yeah, you have nerves of steel, sir. Well done!! - Alison ❤ 00:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The Solomon Barnstar
For fair and reasoned decision making. Two examples from today:

May your tribe increase! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It needed to end. Kudos for stepping up. It's not worth further discussion...it needed to end. Whether this will be the end is another story :-)  Frank  |  talk  01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • While I can't say I agree with your close, I find it hard to find fault with your logic. I applaud you for sticking your neck out like that. I'm sure a lot of people aren't going to be happy with it, but in the end, your close does make sense. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for stepping up and taking on the task of closing. Your rationale is excellent. I can't find fault with any of your answers, and without reading through the entire DRV and AfD again can't even say that I would have answer any of them differently, though I was leaning in a different direction when I reviewed it last night. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that I can't join in unreserved praise. I find your point #3 to be incorrect: defaulting to delete for BPLs when there is no consensus is indicated only when the subject has requested deletion (and the change proposed by Lar to the contrary at WT:DEL will manifestly not be adopted at this stage). But I won't push it any further in regard to Shankbone, he's not worth it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I am afraid that my view is the same as Nomoskedasticity, and that the point in question #3 is quite critical. I am also very concerned that an example of such a "backdoor deletion" process being endorsed by a minority (not a majority, let alone a consensus), and then sticking, will only encourage more administrators to close AFDs in accordance with their own whims, instead of according to community consensus. Isolated, the David Shankbone article itself is not a big loss (I didn't participate in the AFD, and hold no strong opinion on whether he is notable or not), but the repurcussions this may have on who gets to decide the outcome of deletion discussions worry me a great deal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm. The original closer did make a rationale for deleting despite the slight consensus against that. It was reasonable rationale. Was it a correct rationale? That's debatable. But in the end DRV can only posit on whether the close was in line with policy. It was - and so it had to stick. As I said in my close, there's absolutely no way that any of this should be taken as any precedent whatsoever. Black Kite 10:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • So much for closure. The sticking point is #3 for quite a few of us, it seems. You're right that it isn't a precedent but Sjakkalle uses the right words: encourage, endorse and repurcussions. I'd add example. Lar and Lara and others have been talking about previous examples and how practice can be another route that policy can catch up with later. It concerns me that Jake Wartenberg tried to change policy before his close, and Lar has been trying to change the policy -- indicating that they disagree (or disagreed) with your interpretation of WP:DEL language as it stands. Because it's so hard to get a consensus to make a major change around here, the anger on both sides will just grow, although I did see some encouraging signs on Jake Wartenberg's talk page (and some discouraging ones on Lar's talk page). JohnWBarber (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Bien raisonné, bien fait! Eusebeus (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I echo the barnstar given (wish it would have been me who gave it, but oh well...). For admins, this whole thing was mostly a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" as far as making tough decisions like this is concerned. My 2nd paragraph in this post in a recent RFAR here exactly sums up what admins go through regarding deletion discussions. There are people who like the call and people who thought it was a terrible call. The "red challenge flag" gets thrown and further review. Whether the ruling on the field stands or is overturned, someone's not going to like it, and some people will be pissed off because of it. MuZemike 00:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Unfounded accusations"

"making completely unfounded accusations such as the meat-puppetry one against Akhilleus above is really not a good idea at all".

I have already put forth evidence at ArbCom of a long history of Akhilleus operating in a tag team inappropriately:

Talk:Ludovico Ariosto, Talk:Persian Empire, etc. You can find plenty more with this tool by searching Moreschi and Akhilleus, Folantin and Akhilleus, Dbachmann and Akhilleus and Antandrus and Akhilleus. The same pattern happens at each page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, see [5], [6], etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, we have an encyclopedia to write, yes? Would you consider calling a halt to the drama you are spreading far and wide today, and do something useful instead? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on 7 different pages during this. Perhaps everyone else should stop bothering me so I can finish? No one else can show the dedication that I have shown to creating content, and these actions are merely intended to harass and drive me away. Hence why people like yourself keep this up after a year without having any basis for it and causing it on multiple pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Black Kite, if I need to provide diffs of the same arguments over and over in every post, people will just accuse me of trolling and unnecessarily having multiple paragraphs before making the same arguments. Akhilleus was at the Rfar, he knows the evidence against him. He knows what he does and everyone else does too. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, if I documented it all on a page like Folantin has in her claims that I "hate" him, then it would be sent to MfD and I would be blocked for harassment or battleground. So, what do you propose as an easy way to provide dozens of diffs and over a year worth of actions? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no archive, so it will be incomplete or hard to read. And that would lead to claims that I am being misleading. Furthermore, there will always be complaints about it no matter what, because the object is to complain and not to specifically deal with anything at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

asking for at least a temporary restore:

The AfD you deleted to is not appropriate for a "recreation" speedy. At the time it was speedy deleted because it was a "hoax", but apparently does exist. (or at least someone went to great lengths to pretend like it did, including YouTube'd copies of it). I'm asking for at least a proceedural restore, as the discussion was not a full AfD. If it again is proven to be a hoax, go ahead with the speedy. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, no harm/ill intent was meant in that request.. just wanted to take another look at it. Good job :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you participated in the prior RfA and one of the prior AN/Is.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or
(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

  1. RfC Conduct
  2. RfC Guide
  3. RfC Guide 2
  4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

100 Players

I'm surprised you redirected without merging, as there was no consensus to do this.

Someone will get to doing the merge eventually - there's no deadline. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you did a perfectly good job! I had a moment of thought and also did this which seemed a sensible additional action. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

??

I have not seen any policy that says how to format those Delete Pages. Of course it is very biased as is, because the nominator gets a piece but there is no rebuttal (not at the same hierarchy) as there is in normal discourse. Please point me the policy on the formatting of those pages, or tell me why you don't want my comment up there? It would be OK with me if you adjust your comment to say "it is possible this article meets wiki's policy on criminal acts: WP:N/CA" Richmondian (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have a policy to point to, this sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In any case, my comment is below yours and I have signed it, so leave it please. Richmondian (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AN3 case

Can you close this AN3 case whenever you have a few minutes ?
It's obviously too stale (and the editor involved currently dormant) for any blocks to be issued, but it may be helpful if another admin reviewed the reported edit-warring and dropped a talk-page message (if you have other ideas to deal with it, that's fine with me too). I have previously made attempts to guide/warn User:More random musing (see my comments at AN3), and therefore don't want to be the one handling this report. Abecedare (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles Karel Bouley

It is with great trepidation that I address the fact that Karel's article will be unlocked today. Nothing has changed. There has been no discussion. I believe the edit war will begin again. Although I am no longer a personal friend of Karel's, my IPOV will be constantly challenged. If you go back and look at the article as presented over a year ago, you will see that the intent and tone has been changed to an article about Karel's being fired rather than an encyclopedic entry. I will endeavor to edit to make this a neutral article, with the facts presented accurately and impartially.

Although she vehemently denies this, the fact is that Kelly Seibecke is well know in various chats for Karel bashing and has turned the article into a negative, not neutral, commentary. Karel has accomplished enough negative news himself, there is no need for antipathetic enhancement. Kelly herself has admitted she found the chronology confusing. She nitpicks on inconsequential and dubious entries, i.e. it really is not necessary to explicate which of his parents is the father and which is the mother. Rather than work with me, she engages in the personal venomous attacks for which she is well known. (Google her.)

The entire article needs to be rewritten, neutrally and impartially, refering back to said article previous to November, 2008.

I will be the first to admit, I have a lot to learn about the intricacies of Wiki. FeralTalk and Seaphoto have kindly helped me in the past. I am most willing to work with them or other editors and/or admins to bring up the quality of this article. I have requested such assistance with no significant response. I am willing to write a new draft of the article and submit it for your approval. I have proper and significant references but have yet to master that art. Any help will be much appreciated. I would strongly suggest that Kelly be blocked from editing this particular article. She has made valuable contributions to many articles with her multifaceted interests and talents. Her lack of IPOV in the case of Karel, for all intents and purposes, is non-negotiable.

I look forward to your response and suggest the lock on the article be extended. JoyDiamond (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Richmond crime/policy discussion

I saw the AFD that you started but have not left any comments. WP has a page about "other crap exists" but WP should have some reproducibility and equal treatment of all articles? Some other crap has never been subjected to AFD but some have passed/kept. Shouldn't there be equal treatment of articles?

Balloon boy is another example. Covered by many reliable sources but is this only news or encyclopedic? About a year ago a bus rider in Canada was killed and his head chopped off. I would be very surprised if an article wasn't written in Wikipedia.

Perhaps there needs to be a new BAFD (broad AFD) process where once in a while a series of articles are considered? I don't want to create conflict but am trying to think of solutions to this daily problem. The current guidelines and policies are conflicting, hence the AFD debates. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The bus beheading is here: Murder of Tim McLean.
The "AFD" process could do with some change, I think it was designed for things like aspiring bands, vanity pages, patent nonsense, etc. but somehow info that is widely known is being caught up in the net, in spite of "Wikipedia is not paper".
I imagine Suomi is correct, the same arguments are probably re-hashed with many deletions and what survives is close to random. In this case we even have a very specific guideline, but somehow that doesn't seem to affect the debate much. Of the voters, very few seemed to point to a particular part of the "criminal acts" guideline which the Richmond article failed to meet, making me think they don't care of haven't read it.
Richmondian (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Or alternatively they could actually be reading WP:NOT#NEWS, which is a policy, not a guideline. Just a thought. Black Kite 00:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I did read that, perhaps you haven't? How does it define news? Richmondian (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I presented this subject because there might be benefit to discussion of the process. Discussion about the Richmond article might be better to take place in the AFD. How about fairness. If Tim Lean is to be kept, why delete Richmond? Or if you delete Richmond, why shouldn't we delete Tim Lean. Sometimes, articles are kept because the AFD was closed as no censensus/default to keep. However, if some thing is deleted but another similar one is not, this is not right. That's why I thought of a broad discussion to discuss similar articles, in the hopes of developing a consensus view. A common theme of recent event articles is that one event is covered in several countries. The "not news" versus "reliable sources" debate often results.

Balloon boy, Canadian bus beheading, Richmond gang rape, Fort Hood shooting, they all are similar to me, unless I missed something. How about the woman who falsely claimed she swam across the Atlantic, the Australian competition to live on an island and get paid, or Janne Aikala (a sensational murder trial in Turku, a big town in Finland)? Any ideas, let me know.

I'm not trying to argue with you or Richmondian but want to understand the matter better. When someone says "not news", what they probably mean is "not just news" because all of Wikipedia is news (9/11 attack, World War II, etc.) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

barnstar

The Minor Barnstar
For a civil discussion over a policy question. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply regarding 2000AD/Judge Dredd Megazine image use

This has already been seen to by WikiProject Comics. Please read here at the bottom of the page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright. Please make note of the other companies also listed for future reference. I feel that this is important to know for those here who submit AfDs and the like on a regular basis. The Cake is a Lie T / C 11:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the issue here? Please explain the worst-case scenario regarding these images being used on Wikipedia. The Cake is a Lie T / C 11:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Two images is an overuse? One of which has already been deleted, and so now one image is an overuse? I believe that's probably a matter of opinion. Oh well, I expected this. The reason I no longer edit Wikipedia is because it's become so mired in bureaucracy and policy that it's impossible to get anything done to any respectable level anymore. I hope you at least realise that this process is detrimental to the project's goals. It achieves nothing from such an overly prudent and unnecessary measure. I wish I still cared enough about Wikipedia to argue this further, but I don't. The image will stay deleted. The Cake is a Lie T / C 12:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks....

for blocking the Sunderland vandal earlier.... Leaky Caldron 13:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Fethullah Gulen page

I am appealing for help about the edit war being conducted by Arnoutf on this page. If you go through the history, you will see that I have been trying to follow the Wiki guidelines at every stage. I have cut out much of the repetition, opinion and hagiography on this page, I have supported everything from third-party sources (this has taken a lot of time) and I have worked very painstakingly to improve the content and structure of the article and make sure it is more encyclopedic, but Arnoutf is using some kind of bot or device to undo everything that I put in now. For example, I expanded the section on the headscarf to show what third-parties have said about Gulen's views on it and also put a direct quote from him to illustrate it and both were immediately deleted by Arnoutf so as to support his (ungrammatical) edit of the intro. I, in fact, started this small edit with good will becaue the original statement was that Gulen supports the "right" of women to veil. Arnoutf obviously suspected that Gulen wants to impose the veil (as some scholars do) so he changed it (into an ungrammatical version) so I quoted (briefly) the research that proves that Gulen does not impose it. (There is more than this but I thought it was enough.) I thought Arnoutf's original doubt was reasonable which was why i went to the trouble of finding the refs, but it is clear that he is not being reasonable. Please review the history of the page and the discussions about it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatice w (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Edit warring

I feel I did not violate 3RR and I have tried to explain my frustration with editors ganging up on me here : [7]. More random musing (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove my photo credits?

That is my opossum photo on the opossum page. I put the customary Wikipedia photo credit on it. Why did you remove it? It is not a violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Los Angeles Mary (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Easegill System

Hi BK, an editor User:LevenBoy has started to contribute on the Special Examples page, and reverted the editor to Easegill System (and removed the references I provided). I have since reverted his edit on that article. I'd appreciate if you could drop him a note to remind this editor on the "rules" you've previously outlined, and to also remind the editor to remain civil. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

BK, be aware that MBM attemped to re-add a reference into this article that was disputed on the SE page. I also note that you've not warned LevenBoy above which may cause issues in the future. It's only fair to warn him in case he breaches the rules and claims to not have known about them. --HighKing (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots

I don't fully understand why you have removed most of the images of Microsoft Paint I had in User:95jb14/Screenshots/Paint. You deleted all but two yet they all had the same licensing. If they can be used in the mainspace then why not in userpages, it is still part of wikipedia, isn't it? Regards, 95jb14 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Bobby Schilling

Hello, it's me again. Bobby Schilling, the candidate for Congress in Illinois, is now the sole Republican candidate in the district, since the deadline to file for the primary has passed and no other candidate has filed; thus he is the presumptive nominee. He is also receiving more coverage. As a result, I will go ahead and recreate the article, but better-written and with more citations. If you have any objections, please voice them on my talk page, and I promise to be more reasonable this time! Thanks, God bless, 71.178.26.97 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

British Isles warring

I withdraw my most recent, possibly aggressive, remarks made in the heat of the moment over at the SE page for British Isles. I do agree with the notion of a topic ban because as you can see from the nature, and sheer length, of the acrimonious debate over at the SE page, we've got a real problem. I would dearly love to move away from anything BI-related, but while we've got an editor who seeks to expunge the term from Wikipedia then I'm sorry, but I can't stand idly by. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

I did not revert against consensus. No consensus was even established. Neither editor has discussed changes. See Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus".

Please look at the issue more carefully.

Edits:

  1. [8] wp:bold
  2. [9] Discussed changes. Offending editor does not discuss changes
  3. [10] Revert once again by #2 editor.
  4. [11] Another revert.

Rationale

These two editors,

are in a conflict of interest with the topics I edit. They are trying to escalate my editing attempting to provoke me.

Both have been involved with discussions:

Like I said, neither had discussed their reverts on Wikipedia talk:When to use tables.

Please look at Nifboy's inflammatory edit summaries:

WP:DRNC explicitly only applies to articles. Gary King (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Aww40

Hi, It's a pity that you had to block aww40 in connection with the Wessex Institute of Technology. While the source was not formally reliable and the incident doesn't seem to have been reported in the press, Purgathofer's accusations did make quite a splash. Therefore I am not surprised the editor had trouble understanding why we can't include the information.

It would be sad if this block prevented a computer scientist from contributing to Wikipedia in the future or led them to start their editing career with a block circumvention. It seems that some new editors do not notice the red bar pointing them to their talk page (or perhaps they do and think it's odd vandalism or something?), and I got the impression that aww40 is one of them. I am not convinced it was a good idea to block indefinitely in this situation. A relatively short block to make them find their talk page might have been enough. Hans Adler 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone article userfication request

Could you drop a copy in my userspace? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Axmann8

Hello Black Kite. Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this in case you weren't watching, I've decided not to unblock him. Reasons are detailed on his talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Authorizing bans

Heya, just saw your comment at ANI. Just so you know, we were actually just discussing that at User talk:Angusmclellan#Logging. You may wish to offer a comment there, or maybe we should move parts of that discussion to the ANI thread, or maybe start a new thread at WP:AN? --Elonka 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

An Ongoing Battle

Hi Black Kite,

You may recall the article Charles Karel Bouley, which I requested locked due to ongoing bickering between editors JoyDiamond and SkagitRiverQueen. You locked the article for a few days, unlocked it, locked it again for a month, unlocked it, and most recently locked it again for another three months.

It was my hope that with the article locked, the two would stay out of one another's hair, and the year-long battle between the two would finally end.

Unfortunately, Skagit started editing another article Joy had been working on -- resulting in Joy filing wiki-hounding complaints about Skagit[14][15][16], and Skagit complaining to another editor about Joy[17].

This is not the first time Joy has accused Skagit of wiki-hounding and harassment. Similarly, Skagit has accused Joy of wiki-hounding and harassment. As I said, it's been a year-long battle.

I have given up on getting directly involved, as last time I tried, Skagit basically suggested that I'm a mere vandalism hunter, and had no business trying to initiate dispute resolution[18]. I wanted to bring the matter to your attention, having been the admin involved in the prior dispute. -FeralDruid (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yerba Mate Association of the Americas merged to The Young and the Restless??

This makes no sense at all. Your name is on it. Is this some sort of error?? Lou Sander (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I've undone your close of this AFD. As Lou said, it made no sense whatever. Either you were being funny, or it was a simple mistake, or your account has been compromised. Some comment from you here would help in clearing up this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There was another AfD in the list about a "The Young and the Restless" character, which looked like it was going to reach a decision of merge. I imagine that Black Kite simply closed the wrong AfD with the correct result. NW (Talk) 02:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's a relief. I thought one or the other of us had lost their mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sorry folks, had two tabs open at the same time (the other one was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabot Cosmetics (The Young and the Restless)) and closed the wrong one. Black Kite 06:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
What would have been really funny would be if nobody had picked up on it and someone tried the merge... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In blatant violation of WP:CANVASS...

Your co-nomination is invited here.  :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Fences&Windows 19:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Attack on British Isles

I see that you have been dragged into this debacle, but I'm not sure why. Since you're involved I wonder is there anything you can do to stop this constant attack on British Isles. I don't edit continuously on Wikipedia but whenever I come here and look what's happening at British Isles I invariably see one editor, User:HighKing, contiuning to cause disruption by his unrelenting attempts to remove British Isles. Enough is enough, I say. Many editors have tried to reason with him, and all seem to give up in the end. It's about time he was banned. LevenBoy (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hai!

Just a note telling you about this. Cheers, m.o.p 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lake District

Just so that you're aware, User:LevenBoy made this change which I've reverted. He has been around this subject enough times to know what constitutes a good reference, and the fact that we're discussing this on the SE page. This sort of behavious is simply disruption. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well "if we're discussing it" why did you get rid of British Isles on the strenth of your own biased view and a bit of weak support from another editor? I see you're at it again. Trawling throughg the encyclopedia, looking for instances of British Isles to remove. Why don't you try and do something useful for a change? LevenBoy (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
BK, when you get time, please review this editor's recent contributions, including this personal attack. IMHO, it's a problem that has an easy solution. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ping BK - please don't ignore this...this editor is very disruptive. --HighKing (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What to Do for Return of Blocked Sock Puppet

Hi. I was noticing that you recently semi-protected the Monavie article to prevent blocked disruptive users and anon IPs from continuing to edit war using anonymous sock puppet accounts. A similar solution may be needed over at Juice Plus. Admins blocked 6 sock accounts yesterday,[19] and within 24 hours, a new anon IP 68.191.205.186 (contribs) appeared that was innappropiately deleting content[20] and trying to make edits simlar to those that that the blocked accounts had tried to make. Would it be possible for you to either put a semi-block on Juice Plus or offer advice on how to go about requesting a semi-block and/or who to report the user suspected of trying to evade the current account blocks.Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_27&oldid=1139307758"