User talk:Black Kite/Archive 29
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Starfleet (again)
I don't know if you saw the old message, your bot archives after two days. I've undone your tagging of Flans44s images-1) you hadn't warned him, and 2) it is clear that he made them himself, even though they are depictions of other insignia-you can see the cut-and-paste blocks in the images. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- All right, why do we keep going through these edit wars on the Starfleet ranks every few months. Can you someone show me anywhere that the items in these images are copyrighted? Can you both help me find a way to make this right so that the article can have some images in it? Thanks! --Flans44 (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- You can give a better answer than I can, BK. He sounds interested in a fair solution, let's see what we can do. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Charles Karel Bouley - again...
Please take a look at the Charles Karel Bouley article and talk page. JoyDiamond is back to edit warring again. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Brandon Hall un-protect request
I've put forward a request to un-protect Brandon Hall so that it can be converted into a disambiguation page. The request is at WP:RFPP. Your comments would be appreciated. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Images
Where did my Star Trek images go? Why were they deleted? You never responded to my last message! --Flans44 (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
If you look at my userpage, you may notice that I am being asked to clarify the licenses on many of my images. Check back in a few weeks and tell me what the report says.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi. I've tried to address some of the concerns you raised on my RfA. If you're not too busy and can take a look I'd be grateful. Thanks. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please undelete for the purpose of merging and redirecting per WP:PRESERVE. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just to be clear - do you want these userfying? Black Kite 01:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I know this page is an archive, but I have been at the doctor's on Monday for a bit and then the hospital yesterday morning through afternoon, so I just keep getting sidetracked/derailed with health stuff (not a whole lot to be happy about at the time in general...). Anyway, it is probably easier to undelete them and redirect. That way we can merge anything we can or add to it when we have a chance. If you want to userfy okay, but the alternative is probably easier and more convenient for others as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have reached this article at much the same time. I had added a good source to the article before you deleted it and then there was an edit conflict at the AFD. My addition of a source makes your AFD close opinion incorrect so please either revert or usefy the article so that I can continue to add sources and then reinstate it. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theses articles were listed for 2 weeks, saying you were just now going to add the one bit of information that would save it is a bit far fetched. I would recommend going go to deletion review. Ridernyc (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I had already added the information, as may be seen at the userfied version. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've userfied it. DRV is fine, but in these cases I think the articles need decent sourcing first. Cheers, Black Kite 01:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. What happened to the edit history though? Colonel Warden (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Try now. Black Kite 01:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I see it now, thanks. And so to bed ... Colonel Warden (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theses articles were listed for 2 weeks, saying you were just now going to add the one bit of information that would save it is a bit far fetched. I would recommend going go to deletion review. Ridernyc (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
LongArm
You got it all wrong. LongArm is not part of the Masters of the Universe. He's from COPS.Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Eleven code
You deleted, with 3 for delete and 6 for keep. Did I do my math wrong? --James Kidd (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ultra Monsters
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Juran_(Ultra_monster) - You have a strange interpretation of what Merge to preserve the content means. I had to put all the content you deleted back into the merged list. Some is now completely lost as you blanked a few Ultra Monsters which are not part of Ultra Q. Shocklord (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review for John Kiriakou
An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Kiriakou. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I wrote, in my Drv request, that since you are semi-retired, I didn't trouble you before going to DRV. Geo Swan (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Jewish peoplehood AFD
Howdy, Would you mind explaining your rational for closing this AFD as you did? I'd like to understand your thinking on this as I am considering taking it to deletion review. Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Numbering
Hi BK. I've just done this [1] which I assume was inline with what you intended? If not my apologies. Pedro : Chat 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
although you're probably not going to respond, just like you ignored the above threads, prior to a wp:drv, the closing admin is supposed to be asked to reconsider. so this is the official request: please reconsider your close that was against a clear consensus. Thank you and have a good day.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering how you could close the debate when the majority was clearly leaning towards the opposite desicion? What is the point of a debate if one person can decide the issue based on his/her POV? Do we have any redress to your decsion?BorisG (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review for Tapuah junction stabbing
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tapuah junction stabbing. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review for Jewish Peoplehood
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jewish Peoplehood. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Joe407 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess
Thank you for finally concluding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, which had run for over a month. As an administrator, I would have concluded it myself, but as a 1980s cartoons fan, I was heavily biased to keeping the article, and so was reluctant to conclude the AfD, as I had my own cow in the ditch, as we Finns say. Now there are two more articles about individual C.O.P.S. characters: Big Boss (C.O.P.S.) and Mickey O'Malley. Neither of these seem to be subjected to AfD at the moment. Regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I have to say that if the main character in the whole series can't have his own article, why should these two then have their own articles? Can you say anything about this? JIP | Talk 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
close
Hi. Just curious why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill-Lyn Euto was closed as no consensus, rather than a keep. No disrespect intended, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- None taken. At least a couple of the Keep votes didn't really address why the murder didn't meet WP:NOTNEWS (i.e. "it's been on the TV"), and there were a significant number of Delete votes that believed it did with reasonable arguments. Please feel free to DRV it if you believe it is necessary, but I believe it's well within the NC range. Thanks, Black Kite 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billie Jean black sequin jacket
Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billie Jean black sequin jacket, hey there; close is fine, but you overlapped with another closer, so there are 2 now.
I added a note on the bottom of the comments, which explains - I'm chatting w/ the user lots right now; they're happy to delete and work in userspace, so it's all cool - just, the AfD headers need sorting. Cheers, Chzz ► 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Reply
Hi Black Kite, I replied to your post on WP:ANI. [2] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Kasseled
Hi Black Kite! I noticed your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Kassel, and it looks perfectly fine. My concern is that there are some points that didn't seem to be brought up in the discussion. While it does seem that he fails WP:ATHLETE (because he has not played professionally), it appears that this might be trumped by WP:ANYBIO (not brought up in the discussion). WP:ANYBIO states that a person is considered notable if they have "received a notable award or honor, or [have] been nominated for one several times". The awards refered to are:
- First goalie to be named Atlantic player of the year - Army Cleans Up at AHA Awards, Kassel rewarded for stellar year in net
- All-American - 2008-09 Atlantic Hockey Preview, John Kassel Bio, Unity native Kassel boosts Army hockey program
If that isn't enough, WP:ANYBIO would even be trumped by WP:GNG, because it seems that he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". All of the articles listed above and the two more listed here contribute to WP:GNG: The puck stops here, More Honors For Army Goalie Josh Kassel. Based on this, what would you suggest be done? Maybe even a relist would be appropriate? Looking forward to hearing from you, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, most of this wasn't actually in the article or discussed at the AfD, so it doesn't really affect it. Of the sources you posit, I doubt if the AHA awards are a "notable award or honor" - they certainly don't have a Wiki article, whilst the All-American issue was discussed during the debate. Of the other sources, the two references you show are (a)a reprint of an article from the Times Herald-Record, a local paper, and (b) a copy of an Army Recruitment press release. Hypothetically, I wouldn't say they constituate "significant coverage in reliable sources". I'd suggest the way to go now would be to userfy the article, add those sources, and attempt to find some others as well that would satisfy the GNG. Black Kite 16:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Fortunately, although some of the awards have questionable notability, they've attracted quite a bit of attention to him, making WP:GNG an option. Well, I'll start a new draft in my userspace and then check back here with you - does that sound okay? Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, go for it. Black Kite 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Alright, here's my draft at User:Arbitrarily0/Josh Kassel. Let me know what you think, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! It's been nice working with you, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Alright, here's my draft at User:Arbitrarily0/Josh Kassel. Let me know what you think, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, go for it. Black Kite 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Fortunately, although some of the awards have questionable notability, they've attracted quite a bit of attention to him, making WP:GNG an option. Well, I'll start a new draft in my userspace and then check back here with you - does that sound okay? Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
User SFU template
RE: 08:15, 4 October 2009 Black Kite (talk | contribs) (711 bytes) (remove non-free image outside article space (WP:NFCC#9)) What non-free content are you talking about? Drcwright (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK. It looks like Everyone Dies In the End put that non-free logo up in September. I had the self-made logo there since 2006... i don't know why he'd change it to a non-free one. cheers. Drcwright (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Admin action
Hi Black Kite, I know you were only doing your job as you saw fit but I wanted to just say thank you for closing down the 3RR thread so quickly and for your comments at ANI, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Afd Darnall Hall
I just created the Housing article for Georgetown at Housing at Georgetown University. Would you take another look at the AfD and see if adjusting the redirect is appropriate. I've saved a copy of the hall's page and I'm merging that content into the article now. Shadowjams (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I really hate to question your closure so quickly, but there are already signs of disagreement at the article after your close. Do you really think that a no-consensus closure is the correct result for an AfD where merge and redirect opinions were equal in number to the keep and delete opinions combined, and the keeps (5) were significantly outnumbered by the other recommendations (13), and even outnumbered by the straight "merge" recommendations (8)? This is one I'd consider taking to DRV (even though I've been shot down there before); would you perhaps reconsider your closure? Deor (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will add my voice to ask for reconsideration. Even after improvement, I am not sure that this article meets the threshold of "significant" coverage, and (to reiterate Deor), a majority of the people offering sound opinions were opting that this article should be either merged or deleted. If you could, could you explain how the recommendations of 5 were significantly stronger than the other voices to sway a "no consensus" decision? I am trying to understand the process here ... I've been on the wrong side of deletion debates before, but at least understood the other side of the debate. This time, I am at a loss. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, having looked at the article again and related it to the !votes in the AfD, I have altered my close. Let's hope I made the right decision here... Black Kite 00:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have no particular horse in this race, but I applaud your change of mind. Conventionally, first-level schools are rarely notable here, however well their articles may be written. It may be a shame to lose such an article, but until project-wide consensus changes, the fact is that notability is not established by reference to the sort of things that primary schools usually do. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, having looked at the article again and related it to the !votes in the AfD, I have altered my close. Let's hope I made the right decision here... Black Kite 00:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
A belated thanks...
We do not always agree, but I wish to express my appreciation of this close. Indeed, the original nominated stub said nothing that would have indicate the man's reknown as a writer. If I come across such in the future, I will gladly bring it to yourattention on yourtalk page, rather than make any comment toward WP:BEFORE. Please accept my thanks and my apology. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Josh Kassel
Black Kite, I'm curious why you restored Josh Kassel without a deletion review discussion. The new version doesn't assert any more notability than the previous version, and I only see one independent, third-party source that has significant coverage. Powers T 12:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It looked to me as though there was enough 3rd party coverage - I realise there's some non-independent sources as well though. Can you tell me which of the sources don't qualify? Black Kite 13:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reference 1 is nothing but statistics, not significant coverage. Reference 2 is very good but it was my impression that we deemphasize local sources when judging notability. Reference 3 is non-independent. Reference 4 does not provide significant coverage of Kassel. Reference 5 does not provide significant coverage of Kassel. Reference 6 is non-independent. Reference 7 does not provide significant coverage of Kassel. Reference 8 does not provide significant coverage of Kassel. Reference 9 is behind a pay wall but it appears to be significant third-party coverage from a reliable source (although apparently Kassel is from the Pittsburgh area so that may be considered local coverage as well). I certainly think an argument could be made for inclusion, since I'm not sure how much weight we normally put on local news media when determining notability, but I think it could go either way. Powers T 14:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
JakeInJoisey
I would like to bring your attention to this edit. Despite being warned to stop, he continues to be melodramatic over the process, and he continues to derail the page off of its intended path. Thanks. –Turian (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Bobbofet
Hi Black Kite. Thanks for blocking this editor. His attitude leaves something to be desired. One question remains: what should be done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Duvanov and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yevgeny Zhovtis? They are malformed and not included in the AfD list. Should they be deleted or edited so they can go through the process? In my opinion, they don't stand a chance, but that may not be sufficient argument ;) Favonian (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've deleted the AfDs and tagged the articles for improvement. If a user in good standing wants to nominate them, then that's fine. Black Kite 18:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Masters of the Universe mass merger discussion
I am working towards improving He man articles such as List of Masters of the Universe characters, List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters and unrleated article The Hugga Bunch any help would be appreciated. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
JakeInJoisey
You might wish to be made aware of [3]. Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- He must be blocked. This much time away from the issue, he is not just removing it to remove, something you explicitly told him not to do. –Turian (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion
Hi Black Kite! I'd appreciate your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Screenshots_of_television_shows. Thanks, Theleftorium 14:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ahoy
Hey there, just noticed this comment regarding the "troll" comment at RSN. I just wanted to take a moment to clarify my position -- the particular issue at hand is one that has been asked at RSN and elsewhere countless times over the last 5 years or so I've been around, and in every case the consensus has clearly been that WND is a reliable source only for its own opinions (not as a source to verify independent facts). Jake is clearly aware of this, as he has been attempting to circumvent consensus for years at the SBVT article and has been rebuffed buy the community several times (RSN and the talk page). I have no doubt at this point that JJ simply refuses to hear a consensus with which he doesn't agree, and that he is trying to use Wikipedia to right Great Wrongs -- At this point I don't see his actions as any more than a disruption. In my experience, the best way to deal with ADVOCACY/HEAR/POINT disruptions is to directly call out the improper behavior, reference DFTT, and stop responding -- the intent wasn't to stir the pot with JJ, but rather to help other editors realize that there is no path to consensus with JJ, and best practice is simple RBI. I know that all may sound like a serious violation of AGF on first read, but I am sure I can show exactly why AGF no longer applies to JJ (recent block in evidence as well). Anyway, thanks for reading. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree - I was merely pointing out to JJ that if he had merely removed the "troll" comment he might've had the defence that he was removing a personal attack; however, he removed the entire comment, and then went on to refactor other people's comments, so he has little defence. Black Kite 23:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
your edit
I clicked on the links you supplied
and
the first one did return the 94,900 that you mentioned while the second one only returned 27,500 not 353,000. Would you care to explain why?
Did you click on the unique microsoft hits link that I provided earlier? Even wikipedia states that probably no word combination on google goes over 1000 unique hits. Considering that I don't think that unique hits really matter in any way and that only complete results do for specific searches such as: "Icesave referendum", while the results of a search for: Icesave referendum without the " " shouldn't really be considered at all.
Let me know what you think.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Saw you blocked User:Fearofreprisal for 3RR - we actually edit conflicted there as I tried to change my warning to a block - but I wondered if you'd noticed on the page history User:OregonWrestling's edits as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Bobbofet
Re: User:Bobbofet - vandalism only account; since your block user has continued vandalism as IP (i.e. [4]); I suggest to extend block to indefinite (all and every edit so far was vandalism- I think that will not changed after April 10th, therefore my suggestion). with best regards,
- thanks for the semi-pro at Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan. :-) --noclador (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Josh Kassel (again)
Why did you archive that discussion before responding? You asked me a question and I responded but then you just ignored me. Powers T 14:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
icesave referendum
please see the talk section where a consensus has been reached as to the title of the article. the person who keeps reverting the article is the one person who does not support a change.--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
i specifically refer you to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Name_of_the_article where biases seem to be quite clear. please read discussion before bullying with admin priviledges--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
my apologies, i´m not usually involved with contentious pages and haven´t come up against this situation before and simply assumed it was an manned admin that does blocking :) --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Close, but not quite...
Hi, Black Kite. I'm certain on the Joe Arpaio talk page that Outback the Koala meant to strike out their own comment with this edit but just messed up the end mark-up on it. (I had just warned them about POV forks and such when I deleted their suggested "mirror" page as an A10.) I think their strike-out can stand. Cheers. — CactusWriter | needles 00:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're right - I've restored their strikeout. Thanks, Black Kite 01:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Kite Man
I apologize..."kiteboy" was just totally...well...not the best thing I could have said..(although I think it was still kind of cute nickname..but..well..maybe not under the circumstances, I guess..maybe "Kite Lad"? ok..ok...sorry..it's the comic fan in me...<sigh>)...and I appreciate your advice. Sorry. Dreadstar ☥ 01:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I quite like "Kite Lad", actually :) Black Kite 01:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Your comments regarding blocks at Joe Arpaio and hopeful involvement
In your comment on the talk page of Joe Arpaio you stated, in part, that;
- WP:UNDUE suggests that minor incidents in the subject's life may not be suitable for inclusion especially if they are contentious
- Material should be specifically relevant to the subject, not solely to their workplace or employers
That being said, I am currently working on another, non-BLP page in my user space here that I userfied. I think it will solve most of the issue, even if it may shift some content warring away from the blp its a partial win. My issue is Im not sure what material to include, per my talk page comments as well. I was really hoping you could help advise or become involved, at least on the page I am trying to build. Please reply to my on my user page talk. Thanks. Outback the koala (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Lewis Hamilton warning template
Thanks for creating this. I was wondering whether it should be protected from editing, either semi or fully? Hopefully, putting the warning in place will stop the vandals while still allowing constructive editing by all. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been done
Fyi as you asked i reverted the vandalism in nearly every article that was vandalised by User:98.255.13.207. STATicVerseatide talk 03:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review for cppcheck
An editor has asked for a deletion review of cppcheck. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. User A1 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
ANI revisit?
You marked Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ghostofnemo as resolved. The initial report was not very clear but three editors have now clarified. Would you mind revisiting to see if it is appropriate for ANI over DR and if so what the best way forward is?Cptnono (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Black Kite. Please could you read the above page and take whatever action you think appropriate in the circumstances?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
you miscounted. Zion Covenant Series
*Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zion_Covenant_Series There are four keeps, and three deletes. One delete said to merge it to the authors site, and one of the keeps said to merge the books into the series article. So you miscounted. Not that it matters. A reduced summary of each book on the main series page works fine. The authors claim millions of people have read these books, but no bestsellers list confirming this has been found, and that rather suspicious. If they were on a bestsellers list or some other way to confirm the high sales of any of the books, I'd be arguing for their own individual articles. Dream Focus 04:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC) situation resolved on my talk page, my mistake. Dream Focus 06:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
N.I.N.A.
Could you restore the talk page while discussion continues? I've got links in my RFA response pointing to revisions in the talk page.—Kww(talk) 06:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind help with this; much appreciated.--Storye book (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi BK, I see you protected Christ myth theory just as I was writing up a 3RR report (complex partial reverts) on Eugeneacurry. I wonder whether you'd be willing to look at it, or whether you consider the matter closed with the protection. I'd normally leave it, but he has been doing this for a very long time, to the point where no one he disagrees with can make an edit, no matter how reasonable or well-sourced it is. Various dispute resolutions steps have been tried, but it continues. If you're not willing to look at the 3RR violation this time, could I ask that you keep an eye on the article when protection is lifted? If it's known that an admin is watching, it might stop. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since it's protected and not a straightforward 3RR I'll leave him a message, and yes, I've got it watchlisted. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again, BK. Regarding the above, I've added the NPOV tag to the article and to the FAQ page. I don't normally add NPOV tags, but I'm doing it here because I feel both pages are unbalanced, yet attempts to add balance have been resisted for a long time. The article tag is still there because it's protected, but Eugene has removed the tag from the FAQ three times. [5] [6] [7] I'm reluctant to continue reverting him. Would you consider asking him not to remove it until the issues are resolved?
- The reason I feel the FAQ page is important is that Eugene constantly refers new editors to it, insisting that they read it before commenting. Yet it was mostly written by him, and in my view is very one-sided. SlimVirgin talk contribs 05:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see Dbachmann has restored the tag, [8] so it should be okay for now. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's Eugene here--OWNer of articles, unbalancer of FAQs, puncher of kittens. Thank you for locking the article. It looks like the lock is set to expire soon but little progress has been made on the talk page. Some hopeful beginnings have taken place, but I imagine that when the lock expires, an edit war is still likely. Would it to possible to extend the lock for another week while we try to hammer things out? Eugene (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Probably the best thing to do is let the block expire and see what happens. It's only the matter of a click to redo it if things return to their former state, and I've got it watchlisted. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
BLOCKED
Plip!
What was this about? *lol* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- He decided that having an "amusing block log" was a higher priority than having a "clean block log" of course. :-) Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Recreation of an article
Hey Kite, I've been inactive for ages, and someone who's article I deleted quite some time ago is coming back with references. I would review and properly guide the editor, but being away for so long, and being so little active here, I feel I'd rather refer him to someone who can be of more assistance. You seem like a cluefull admin, and your closes on AfD look good, so I suppose you could give him a hand on criteria for inclusion, and lend a bit of a hand. Mind if I refer him to you? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Martijn & hi Kite, nice to meet you :-) I am asking for undeletion of an article about the International Television Expert Group, that was deleted 2 years ago due to a lack of references. Though there was some mentioning and some positive votes in the discussion it did not convince the admin at that time. I have now looked up additional references. You may want to check references mentioned on my talk page an let me know your opinion on that? Many thanks, Mentalmoses (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Best of luck, but that IP range is not the only vandal here. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for unprotecting the article again. I think the edit notice is clear enough. Allowing IPs the opportunity to contribute constructively is better than preventing them from editing the article. The best way to deal with the vandalism is to come down hard on the perpetrators (min 2 week block for IPs, 1 month for registered accounts). Once they realise that the edit notice means what it says, then perhaps they'll stop the vandalism. This method was also being tried on the RMS Titanic article, but that has been semi'd again. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Messages below please
DocOfSoc (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!
Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Pobol y Cwm
Hello there, I was in the middle of making character pages, and I started with Anita, and had not yet finished, and was wondering why you deleted it, when it wasn't finished at all yet? Thank you.
Ducks
After seeing the wording in your "Resolved" for LeeSeem on ANI, it occurs to me that the "Duck test", given as "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck", could add the phrase, "stalks like a duck". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can ducks stalk? I get the impression they'd be a bit obvious if they were quacking.. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Mentalmoses/ITEG
Thanks for your quick response! I have now updated User:Mentalmoses/ITEG. Best, Mentalmoses (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The Community Television Show Episode Page Guide List Recap Summary Topic Discussion Subject Of Deletion On NBC
Aw thanks for bringing the article right to my page! Hey sir, the page wasn't finished, you still have the ability to add to the episode page after it's been created. Sure from now on I'll create it in my own space, but instead of tearing down these things, why don't we just fix the tweak that they're missing? I'm sure someone like yourself has the ability to do so. Even oysters have pearls. Anyway, thanks for the visit, and I'll try and apply those principles as I do what is wrong in Wikipedia's eyes. In order to do so better, could you answer a question? How do I know when there's enough cultural impact to warrant a page for something ever? I speak of course of Arrested Development episodes that simply refer to other episodes of itself. Is that merely enough?Madhatter9max (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Relationship with book-review publisher
No, I specifically don't want to ask the publisher for favours, because it will influence my ability to provide an independent review. It is not a trivial matter in this case. Tony (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's hardly a favour though, Tony; mainstream publishers do this all the time for reviews. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is important that I have no contact with the publisher. Elsewhere, there may be an arm's-length process in the reviewing organisation that does not involve personal contact by the reviewer. But fair use, in the US, would render this unnecessary for a small image of a book-cover, surely? It is only WP's strategy of minimising NFC by banning its use in main space that causes this problem, and common sense says that an exemption should be granted. I do not disagree with the policy; only with the utter refusal to grant a common-sense exemption based on exaggerated fears of a slippery slope. This is a failure of management. Tony (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do have some sympathy for this view, I have to admit. I think the opposition to the usage is partly not due to the slippery slope rule, but an impression that book reviews aren't part of what Wikipedia should be. I'm wondering if there's any way the review can be hosted outside enwiki space but somewhere else in Wikimedia itself? Black Kite (t) (c) 13:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reviews are a tradition at The Signpost. The audience is large and well-targeted. There is no reason an exemption should not be granted for this case, I believe. I makes the boundary between main space and article space more workable when the odd exception that falls beetween them is allowed. Tony (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do have some sympathy for this view, I have to admit. I think the opposition to the usage is partly not due to the slippery slope rule, but an impression that book reviews aren't part of what Wikipedia should be. I'm wondering if there's any way the review can be hosted outside enwiki space but somewhere else in Wikimedia itself? Black Kite (t) (c) 13:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is important that I have no contact with the publisher. Elsewhere, there may be an arm's-length process in the reviewing organisation that does not involve personal contact by the reviewer. But fair use, in the US, would render this unnecessary for a small image of a book-cover, surely? It is only WP's strategy of minimising NFC by banning its use in main space that causes this problem, and common sense says that an exemption should be granted. I do not disagree with the policy; only with the utter refusal to grant a common-sense exemption based on exaggerated fears of a slippery slope. This is a failure of management. Tony (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Christ myth theory
There's been a 5RR on that article if you're willing to look at it; see the report here. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I see you are awake
I had to make this edit deep back in WP:ANI, and I know from experience that such edits tend to get missed. CharlieJS13 has become a real problem, and even tomorrow I won't be able to fix it because of WP:INVOLVED ( a policy which, despite some people's fears, I do understand).—Kww(talk) 15:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Please could you kindly explain exactly which elements of the page have a copyright issue and why? This page is a team effort by me, MKharitonov and DSJersey.
Normally we expect it to be the ogg files and the images which have copyright issues. It so happens that MKharitonov owns the copyright to all the videos, images and sound recordings in this article together with his father, Leonid Kharitonov. He arranged the upload of all the ogg files under his own copyright (with the assistance of DSJersey), and I've checked them - they're all max 30 secs anyway.
Please let me know what I can do to resolve any issues which worry you here, and I'll see that it gets done. For example, the screenshots were given to me to upload, at my request, by MKharitonov who took them from the original directors' tapes created back in the 60s or whenever. This is because he is in a position to create the screenshots because the tapes are in Moscow and so is he, and at that time I knew how to upload images to Wiki and he didn't (he was new to Wikipedia then).
So is this because you want him to upload the screenshots directly, himself? Or is your tag about something else that we haven't yet noticed? I should add that although Leonid Kharitonov has not orchestrated this article and has had no direct influence on it, he certainly has full knowledge of it, and of course is in a position to veto anything he disapproves of. If there were any violation of his copyright, we would know about it. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there, I am working off the database report of articles with excessive non-free media files, which reports that there are 16 in this article. If some of the images and/or sound files are in fact being used with permission and have been released under a Wikipedia compatible license (see WP:COPYREQ), could you re-tag them please? Unfortunately though, if they're being used with permission but haven't been released, we still have to class them as non-free (because they're still copyrighted for downstream users) which means they need to pass all ten criteria at WP:NFCC, which some of these don't. Hope that makes sense - if not, get back to me. I'm not going to remove anything from the article straight away because of the warning tag anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt reply. After a quick glance at the link you sent, my guess is that MKharitonov wrote on Leonid Kharitonov's website (as webmaster) that the sound files could be used on Wikipedia and that other users had to ask permission - and that is what has caused the problem. At this point I think the solution would be to ask MKharitonov to please kindly re-upload all the ogg files and the screenshots under his own copyright license for free use. I have not yet asked him, but I can't see that he or Leonid Kharitonov would object to free use licences of the 30-sec oggs or of the screenshots. Assuming that they agree to this - would this strategy solve the problem? I need to know this for sure before asking unnecessarily, and would be most grateful if you would please kindly check this out, since you tagged the page.
- Personally I don't see how it could fully solve the problem. Firstly, there are no tags on the image/ogg files, which makes me wonder what the bot is referring to. Secondly, there are in total 12 images/oggs on the page, and not 16. And two of the images are definitely fully free images (Gori Gori screenshot and military ID photo). That means we are only accounting for 10 images/oggs which have permission for Wikipedia use only (if that is what the issue is). So that is why I need to ask you to identify the offending items precisely before we can go any further.--Storye book (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think the bot assumes that anything that isn't tagged as a free file automatically isn't one (erring on the side of caution, correctly in this case). But yes, you're right in that licensing the 30sec OGG files correctly would solve that problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm really struggling with the ogg copyrights, rules and licences, as I have never uploaded one myself. Please could you kindly send me a link to a page which tells me exactly what licences are available under what rules, and which confirms the 30-second rule? I have been searching since I found your tag, and cannot find such a page on en.Wiki or Commons. I need to find a correct licence and to ask DSJersey to adjust the lengths of recordings if necessary (because I can cope with licences but not with sound editing). Or would a normal self|cc-by-3.0 licence be the right one, if MKharitonov uploads them all himself to Commons? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- ** Yes, as long as he owns the original copyright then a normal CC 3.0 license to Commons would be fine, or as per WP:COPYREQ, a WP:CC-BY-SA licence to en.wiki. Incidentally, there is no 30-second limit on sound files; all copyrighted sound files are automatically fair use regardless of length; the 30-second limit is to ensure that they can be used as fair use without breaking copyright laws external to Wikipedia. The relevant page is WP:SAMPLE, by the way. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind help. I'll see if we can get the ogg files sorted out, and then I'll ask you to see if the bot will accept that. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- The licences are now corrected on all the ogg files for this article, and I've removed the unfree tag. MKharitonov is busy right now, so we've done it this way for the moment. Please let me know if there's any further problem. Thanks for all your kind help with this.--Storye book (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind help. I'll see if we can get the ogg files sorted out, and then I'll ask you to see if the bot will accept that. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- ** Yes, as long as he owns the original copyright then a normal CC 3.0 license to Commons would be fine, or as per WP:COPYREQ, a WP:CC-BY-SA licence to en.wiki. Incidentally, there is no 30-second limit on sound files; all copyrighted sound files are automatically fair use regardless of length; the 30-second limit is to ensure that they can be used as fair use without breaking copyright laws external to Wikipedia. The relevant page is WP:SAMPLE, by the way. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm really struggling with the ogg copyrights, rules and licences, as I have never uploaded one myself. Please could you kindly send me a link to a page which tells me exactly what licences are available under what rules, and which confirms the 30-second rule? I have been searching since I found your tag, and cannot find such a page on en.Wiki or Commons. I need to find a correct licence and to ask DSJersey to adjust the lengths of recordings if necessary (because I can cope with licences but not with sound editing). Or would a normal self|cc-by-3.0 licence be the right one, if MKharitonov uploads them all himself to Commons? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
user:J.R. Hercules and Milton Friedman again
Hello, user:J.R. Hercules recently received a 55 hour block from you for edit warring on Milton Friedman's page. This is his second block within a few days on that article. Well, right after his block expired, his first edit was to re-add the same sort of contentious material to the Friedman article without discussion. Now, granted, this material is slightly re-worded with a different reference, but it is functionally the same and there is no way he could think this would not be contentious. Further, all of the objections that other editors have voiced about his other edits apply equally here.
I reverted his edits and left a note on the talk page detailing my complaints again, however, if history is any guide, that wont do any good. Should I take this back to the edit warring noticeboard, or can I trouble you to take some action here. Even if you dont block him again, perhaps it would be helpful to have an uninvolved voice here? For my part, I wont edit that page again today, even if he reverts me, but Id like to avoid that eventuality if possible. Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Active Banana
I know that the article Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010 is out of your league, but I want you to pay close attention to user Active Banana (talk · contribs), who seems to be doing a pseudo-edit war in the article. Mainly, he removes all contestant profiles from the article, citing what he thought is WP:OR and even using WP:BLP to justify for the removal of the sections. And he does them with putting his concerns first on the talk page. I don't know where he's from, but I'm sure that he is from the Philippines, where the show is aired. Furthermore, the profiles are taken up from both the official website and the show itself. We just can't provide third-party sources on those profiles for the moment, but that's for later. I know Active Banana had been lectured in being a deletionist in his talk page before, but I think he didn't take that reminder.
Also, he seems to stand his ground and seems to boisterous. This is why I don't want to deal with this guy directly. Instead I'm asking help from you admins for an impartial view. Can you please help me deal with this user. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- He's absolutely right. If the information is indeed from a reliable source, then that source needs to be quoted. Some of it is somewhat dubious per WP:BLP. And to be honest, it's pretty trivial anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Black Kite, it seems as if my last week's notice has disappeared and I just want to leave a short and discreet reminder, that the revision of User:Mentalmoses/ITEG is done. You may want to consider a short review? Many thanks and best regards, Mentalmoses (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! Will I have to get back to you to republish the article (once the group's look-over is done)? Mentalmoses (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
JBolden1517
I've got to say that I'm shocked that Jbolden1517 was allowed to return. Does it mean nothing that as recently as a week ago he was still breathing threats over at Wikipedia Review? Eugene (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- You should probably have linked to that if you wished it to be taken into account by the ANI discussion; without that editors could only judge on what was presented to them. As for myself, my position was clear to JBolden assoon as I blocked them; it would've been hypocritical for me to change my stance. Clearly though, if there is any recurring issue towards you from JBolden, it is unlikely such leniency will be tolerated again. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did mention it and I included a quote; no one seemed to care though. I stopped short of linking as I didn't know if thid would be frowned upon as a sublte attempt to "out" his real-lief identity--no he doesn't attempt to conceal the connection off-site.Eugene (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that's problematic if he's using a real name on Wikipedia Review; I will have a look at it when I get home tonight. Edit: I can't find the relevant thread. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did mention it and I included a quote; no one seemed to care though. I stopped short of linking as I didn't know if thid would be frowned upon as a sublte attempt to "out" his real-lief identity--no he doesn't attempt to conceal the connection off-site.Eugene (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)