User talk:Black Kite/Archive 32

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

Re:

That was strange. I was looking at the history in an attempt to understand what the heck happened and saw you fixed it. Do you know what caused it? My main concern is that I unwittingly contributed to the mess. Thanks Tiderolls 16:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • No idea - it was Claritas' edit that caused the problem, but how they did it is beyond me :) Black Kite (t) (c) 17:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Added to Arbitration for COI Blocking

Here[1]--Wittsun (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A brief follow-up from my comment at this request, where I did a review of the process by which the topic ban was imposed. I pointed out that the topic ban doesn't appear to have been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Is that the place where this would normally have been logged? I also asked a question about whether the topic ban discussion included comments from both those familiar with the issues and fresh opinions from those looking at this for the first time. As you are more familiar with the discussion (having closed it), would you be able to answer that question? If not, I'll try and evaluate that bit myself. Carcharoth (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I added you because you locked the discussion after only 3.5 days. It is perfectly normal to evalute possible COIs when dealing with ethnically motivated blocks. Or to put in another way, although you don't make the impression as being rabidly bigoted -- in contrast to the editors you defend -- you don't seem overly interested in fair hearings. If you like to pounce on rodents, Mr. Black Kite, do so by the light of day.--Wittsun (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Ecchi Anime

Undelete the thing. This originally tongue-in-cheek term has grown to be the accepted primary genre name for animated mild erotica w/ an actual plot (vs. hentai, of same genesis, but referring to porn). Calling it erotica instead would fail miserably, too, because countless publications refer to the genre as such. Oh, and on a side note, who accepted DELETE votes from people who started with "I'm not an expert on anime..."??? The whole thing was deleted on the basis of that ONE vote, plus one guy who flat-out said that his decision was based on it being able to cause an editing war (right, cause holywar prevention is a basis for deleting legitimate stuff for order's sake - if that were true, not a single politician country or celebrity of note would ever get an article at all), plus one person who suggested merging into the Ecchi page's list (which was deleted too, so his suggestion wasn't taken) - hence, literally on the basis of the one vote from the one guy who implicitly stated that he had no understanding of the topic at hand and no idea what this all even meant, and was operating under the presumption that this is an adjective, not a genre name. WOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.237.44 (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Evenhandedness

Kite,

what I am looking for is evidence of evenhandedness.

The reversions ---and especially summaries--- of Snowded were deliberately provocative. If he had taken offense at the use the term, he could have removed it without multiple reverts the whole page.

His actions were every much as "bad" as mine appeared. In fact worse, because I was just struggling with the caption formatting and had no intent to revert him. Here the intention and false slur was deliberate.

Does that seem unreasonable? Especially given that "consensus" actually supported me.

The inequality of the way I was punished, in comparison to other long term POV pushers, does seem to be too great. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your second revert was three days after the first. I simply asked you to discuss the change first per the ruling. If I had not been in the air at the time I would hae done the same to HighKing. I also made the point on the project page, and on my own talk page in response to you that I supported the change of name. Also it was your first ever edit of an article not to do with motorbikes or directly with BI issues ... --Snowded TALK 06:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

I have no desire or interest to get involved in this matter whatsoever, but I seem to remember you saying in a recent discussion at WP:AN/I that edits like this weren't regarded as particularly helpful (especially when they can't even be bothered to make the verb agree with the new plural subject!).

If there is any relevant guidance to be given to this user, would you mind having a quick word? Is there a summary anywhere of what is consensus regarding the term's use and editing? Thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

TPS here. There's a general sanction in place for this. The long and the short of it is that there are very few places where it is universally accepted as being okay (basically only in the case when one is specifically referring to a certain set of big rocks at a designated point in the Atlantic Ocean), but there are plenty where it is currently deployed without a high degree of controversy. As edit warring over this has sucked so much edit time already, nobody should be making changes to currently deployed terminology without first getting strong consensus for it, and anyone who does can find themselves specifically sanctioned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the assistance and advice! Knepflerle (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

SE page

Extended content

BlackKite, I've grave concerns about the British Isles Specific Examples page. I'm contacting you to ask for you opinion since you seem to be the closest thing to a mediator for that page. I have (and am) a contributor to the page myself but increasingly a wary one.

Initially, it would appear, the page was created in order to discuss specific examples of use of the term in order to reach agreement on appropriate/mis-appropriate uses of the term. Its existence now seems to be permanent and its function seems to be to serve as a discussion point for a limited number of editors to make changes to a contentious area across the encyclopaedia.

While in itself that might not be a problem, the concern I have is that the page is being used to make changes to articles based on a concern over use/non-use of a term that is at the fringe of genuine (community) consensus on the matter. While some of the instances raised are quite valid, I am worried that the decisions being reached are based on a limited set of concerns. Consequently, changes are being made to the text of articles on topics about which the participating editors have little interest in beyond their personal preferences over the semantics of one term used in them and no substantive understanding of the topic that would allow them to make informed decisions one way or the other. I'm concerned too that it appears that the editors of the page seem to have taken it upon themselves to decide that the SE page is the only appropriate venue to discuss additions/removals of the term across the encyclopaedia.

The entire page strikes me now as no more than a trolling exercise and a means to push the POVs of a limited number of editors. Rather that serve its original purpose, it seems to now have been turned into a devise to manufacture "consensus" in order to continue the activitiy of making systematic changes on a contentious subject, which the community rejected at ANI.

I believe that it should be closed down as disruptive and wasteful but wanted to get you opinion first before I invited community input. --RA (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  • No, feel free to invite community discussion; as I said to HighKing the other day, I agree with him that the use of BISE either needs to be tightened up or I suspect it will fail anyway. However, there is also an argument that discontinuing it would merely push the conflict into random other corners of Wikipedia, because short of issuing mass topic bans and/or blocks (and even then we'd probably end up with a group of "new editors") it's not going away any time soon. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I share RA's concern, which is why I was calling for initiation of each debate on local article talk pages. But in all seriousness, what a sad commentary about Wikipedias's systems, that we have this farcical situation because to conform to WP norms would merely mean bringing on a bunch more determined POV-pushers. In no way is this situation your fault Black Kite, but doesn't it demonstrate that what's really needed here is a firm hand with what boils down to a rather extreme POV that the cyclopedia should be excised of all references to the British Isles. Not just that, but if that is allowed to progress (which is actually the net effect of the current position) then the POV attack-dogs will move on to further turf - removal of "Great Britain". "British". "British Empire". The list of possibilities is endless. The wearisome evidence of past deletes shows, as RA expertly confirms, that there is zero interest in the quality of sourcing, local content and sometimes not even the pretense of it in these operations. HK has, sometimes, almost I have to say by chance, made good deletes. When closely scrutinised, he nearly always turns out to have (a) nil knowledge in the subject matter and (b) zero interest. How can this ridiculous situation possibly be in line with creating an NPOV cyclopedia? I rest my case M'Lud. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both RA and Jamesinderbyshire about the problem, however the issue is not going to go away. I once read a good piece on a user page about how POV pushers always get there way in the end as editors without one tend to give up fighting them long before the POV does (can't find the link though). So as frustrating as it is I can see no end in sight for this one. Codf1977 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
My 2c - I believe a resolution may be to extend the terms of the general sanction to include any editor or group of editors that adds/removes the term, or initiates discussions to add/remove the term, from multiple articles (regardless of sourcing or justification) in a systematic or habitual fashion. Obviously this would only apply to actions that the enforcing admin considered to be primarily designed to add/remove the term (so as to not trap editors who simply work in the area). Such editors should be topic banned from making edits that add/remove the term or initiating (even participating in?) discussions to add/remove on the term IMHO. Errors etc. in use/non-use of the term can be corrected in the normal wiki fashion as individual articles develop.
Is that too draconian? I feel it is the spirit of the general sanction from ANI. --RA (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Within the spirit but not that comfortable with restricting "everyone" in such a undefined way. By that I mean what constitutes "systematic or habitual fashion" one editor listing 10 in one day or another one listing 10 over 10 days ? do we treat challenges that prove "valid" differently to "invalid" or "vexatious" ones like in Tennis? If a given editor abuses it then make that editor subject to a defined restriction say no more than 5 listings per month. Codf1977 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Everybody has a POV. And at this project, the "unspoken" aspiration is that the "right" or "wrong" or "truth" on any issue will eventually seep into articles over time, through regular editing, as editors are creating and updating content they have an interest in. The entire project is based on the core assumption (and policies) that editors behave responsibly, while assuming good faith, and with respect for all opinions and other contributors.
It doesn't always work like that though, and then we end up with a situation not unlike the current situation.
But the idea that editors would be banned (regardless of sourcing or justification) is against policies, and against the spirit of this project. But I understand why RA suggests it and I can also see that it actually has some merit.
That said I think it is too draconian - yet I genuinely want to find *something* that can work. RA said above Initially, it would appear, the page was created in order to discuss specific examples of use of the term in order to reach agreement on appropriate/mis-appropriate uses of the term." That's true. What we haven't managed to do successfully is categorize the commonalities we've seen across the numerous articles that have been looked at, and extract some measure of what is appropriate, and what is not.
What about an approach where we aim to produce guidelines on usage *without* changing articles? It might allow some measure of discussion to find common ground, and identify the polar extremes, without the now-familiar disruption. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I, personally, would not see discussion to produce guidelines on usage (*without* changing articles) as being in breach of the change to the sanction that I propose below. I think it would be a good idea. --RA (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll respond here to leave your proposed sanctions easy to find since I see you've addressed it to BK (and I know how annoying it can sometimes be when the discussion gets hijacked). In a nutshell, the problem with your proposed sanction is that it is against policy, and could never be upheld. It would be open to challenge by any admin that disagrees. --HighKing (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry to be taking over your page, BlackKite.
Sure, "habitual" is probably a bit much. "Systematic", as in the current sanction, is the core issue. Through that too is ill-defined - is the Specific Examples page "systematic" for example?
"...do we treat challenges that prove 'valid' differently to 'invalid'...?" All the same. It really doesn't matter. And besides, the issue of what is "valid" or "invalid" is the point in question. These kinds of problems can be corrected in through the normal wiki process by individual editors.
The following is an amended version of the current sanction:

Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or systematically initiates discussions to add or remove the term, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of this sanction, "systematically" will be broadly interpreted. ...

And the following a possible additional topic ban to add to the list of possible topic bans under the sanction:

TB02 (Topic ban two): User is banned from adding or removing the term "British Isles" on a Wikipedia wide basis. The user may not initiate related discussions but may still participate in related discussions so long as they engage in appropriate conduct, and do not add or remove the term.

What do you think, Black Kite? --RA (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That actually looks pretty good to me. Since the discussion seems to be taking place here, what do others think? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I think "TB02 (Topic ban one)" should be "TB02 (Topic ban two)" ;-)
Looks good to me. It would probably be worth advising any editor to whom proposed-TB02 was applied that this applies. TFOWR 17:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Fixed "one" → "two". --RA (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed my response above. In a nutshell, the problem with the proposed sanction is that it is against policy. It's effectively a ban on editing and discussing a topic, and could be perceived an attempt to subvert existing core policies. It would also be open to challenge by any admin that disagrees. Is anything so draconian in place for anything else? --HighKing (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a policy guru by any stretch, so I'd happy to defer to more knowledgeable editors on this one. Is it worth running it past counsel? TFOWR 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
@HK: no, it would certainly have to go back to ANI if not ArbCom, it's not something that's going to be decided here; it's useful to get opinions though. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I support it, but I'd be surprised if you got it through. LevenBoy (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal @ 17:56 by RA. I would also like to see a mention of how we handle new "involved editors". Like the case with that user who removed BI from two articles recently which was only just found today. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC) However, if we have to take this back to ANI or even Arbcom simply to get agreement it would seem like a waste of time. We could keep the current wording, but those of us "involved"(everyone talking on this page and on BISE) volunteer to go by the tougher wording. Then if one involved editor is clearly ignoring the rule we go to ANI or use the currently agreed sanctions. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, why not the suggestion I put forward above? Less draconian, enforceable, in line with policies, and with a promise of making progress. --HighKing (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What about an approach where we aim to produce guidelines on usage *without* changing articles? It might allow some measure of discussion to find common ground, and identify the polar extremes, without the now-familiar disruption. --HighKing (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I think trying to get agreement on usage would be very time consuming and heavily disputed. We attempted to set some guidelines, we all agreed on some points, but we clearly can not all agree on certain other points and no matter how much debate we have, we will simply not agree. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Any solution which "freezes" articles as they are at the moment whilst encouraging discussion is also fine with me. Both HK's and the one above do that, in different ways. This one would certainly be easier to enforce; "new" editors would be treated as the one that's suddenly popped up at BISE has been; revert, inform, discuss. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. It would also make socking less attractive, which, whatever about the nuisance of to-and-fro POVing, is a much more serious disruption to the project. RashersTierney (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"revert, inform, discuss" - The behavior of Triton Rocker on Northern Ireland is disruptive IMHO but the change he/she made to Artemisia vulgaris certainly was not. The Northern Ireland disruption can and is being dealt with through normal lines. Bringing otherwise sound changes to Artemisia vulgaris to WT:BISE in fact led to disruption. We need to normalise the situation, not make anythig more special out of it. IMO that means putting an end to the systematic changes (which BISE is a being used as a device for). --RA (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm very surprised by the degree of support. I don't see any contradiction between HK proposal and the proposed change to the sanction. In fact, I would see that they would be complimentary. Prevent disruption and work towards a common agreed (community-wide) resolution. Is there enough initial support to move to ANI/ArbCom to amend the sanction? --RA (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to move to ANI/ArbCom to amend the sanction but am concerned in relation to the twin track approach as I am not confident that a set guidelines can be compiled that can be both agreed to by all and that can work in practice simply because the two terms "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" are not interchangeable and any source or reference based guideline is easily susceptible to a common sense failure if for example the source or reference is using the wrong one or using one in favour of the other for politically correct reasons. To overcome this it would need some "override" guideline that would be open to good faith mistakes as well as abuse. Codf1977 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
There's another option. Merely volunteer to stop deleting/re-adding British Isles to articles (i.e. call it a draw). This would satify most editors involved. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It would have been really helpful if many of the editors here had engaged over the last two years on the project page
  • Remember history - when matters were handled on the individual pages we had multiple edit wars
  • I think there is a general issue with SP accounts on both sides of the issue, a sanction on systematic removal or addition, or rejection of any change by an editor whos sole purpose in life is these articles (that is not just BI, but the whole Unionist-Nationalist debate) might be a valid Arbcom proposal
  • Freezing changes while encouraging discussion is the position we are now trying to achieve - that may mean that some sensible edits (like to Artemisia vulgaris have to go through a brief report and request phase - compared with multiple article edit wars its a very small price to pay
  • The entrenched positions are not going to change without some independent review process which clicks in when there is no immediate agreement. When conversations are allowed to go on to long then people lock into positions. I made a proposal on this some time ago |here after we lost Blackkites role as an arbitrator. Its not perfect but something along those lines (ideally simpler) is needed
  • A sanction which prevented editors proposing changes would break all the principles of WIkipedia
  • The position that people should stop adding or subtracting the phrase BI (per Goodday and others) is a POV position in respect of removal and a silly restriction in respect of addition (such as Artemisia vulgaris

--Snowded TALK 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have big concerns about some arbitration panel consisting of a small number of people being able to determine cases regularly. I think the current method on BISE is better, just so long as each editor is limited to the number of cases at a time they can bring forward to prevent systemic alterations. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

List of voluteers who will stop adding/deleting British Isles

  • I volunteer, provided certain others do the same. LevenBoy (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Voluntary oblivion? You 'contribute' to nothing else here. RashersTierney (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I guess I'm about as much use to Wikipedia as you are. LevenBoy (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed the amendment at ANI. --RA (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Except you've merely repeated the proposal above. Yes, there was support, but there were also many reservations expressed and other suggestions which you have just ignored. You haven't linked your proposal to any tangible effort to make constructive progress, and as it stands all your proposal is designed to do is to shut down, permanently, all efforts and discussions. It's censorship and against fundamental Wikipedia principles and policy. For example, try replacing the term "British Isles" in your proposal with, say, "Child Pornography" or "Global Warming" or "Ordination of Women into the Roman Catholic Church" and reread it. It should give you an idea of why it won't fly. --HighKing (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is good. I'm not saying anything against discussion. In fact, I thoroughly support your proposal to discuss with a mind to arriving at guidelines - and not *make* changes in the manner that they are being made at the SE page. --RA (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Great - but as it stands, your modifications to the sanctions are "stand alone", and could even be interpreted as being *against* any discussions. Your comments an ANI suggest that you're against the SE page. Where would discussions take place to develop guidelines? I believe we're all in the same place - freeze changes and encourage constructive discussion. Develop guidelines, perhaps try to categorize usage to avoid repetitious discussions. Somehow that has to be linked to your modifications so that the systematic changes are linked to the timeline and constructive life of the discussions either on the SE page or another centralized location. --HighKing (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we move all this to the proper page so others can see it and find it? I am sure it makes Black Kite feel important but it is distracting from my request for evenhanded administrating. It belongs on the project page. --Triton Rocker (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral admin request

Hi Kite. You've always been an admin who I respect and trust. Could you please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and read the section "Testing the water" and share your thoughts? I truly believe a neutral admin's thoughts would be good in this case. Caden cool 04:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wittsun topic ban

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wittsun topic ban, especially my comment about the apparent mismatch between the ban as proposed and as recorded. –xenotalk 13:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well I've already brought it back to the original wording during maintenance as it seemed self-evident (as has happened in a recent but different user restriction). Black Kite, if you have any questions/concerns about why this needs to use those terms rather than more terms that weren't in the original discussion, please don't hesitate to let me know. Will make a comment at the ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Only thing left to do is to notify the subject, but it might be better if you let him know about the change (and that it will be enforced if he makes edits like the one reported at the ANI in the future). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Wittsun has complained about the change at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Erroneously Banned from Editing Religious Topics Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Bond Montages

Dear Black Kite, While I am very open to persuasion that the montages in the Bond article should be axed (we have already gone from seven montages to three and the choice there seemed a tad arbitrary & one of the remaining ones has been cut down), the purpose of a montage is to show that certain motifs recur in the James Bond films with slight variations. Admittedly the montages are original to WP composed of individual images from other sources, which compromises their viability. Do you think that all three of the remaining montages should be removed as well? Perhaps galleries would be better per WP:Image_use_policy#Collages_and_montages--WickerGuy (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

TritonRocker

Triton Rocker (talk · contribs)

Black Kite, you previously warned this editor against making personal attacks. They have now left this edit summary which I regard as a personal attack, and I have warned them (this was before I realised you have warned them previously). I'll defer to you as to how to handle this.

In a separate issue ("British Isles", I'm afraid...) TritonRocker has made a series of edits this morning and I am proposing that they be listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log under sanction TB01. The edits are:

So far as I can see, these edits were not discussed in advance at WT:BISE, however there has been a discussion after the event.

Are you OK with TritonRocker being "TB01-ed", and, if so, is it simply a matter of adding them to the probation log or are there legal hoops to negotiate first?

TFOWR 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Look ...

  • There is no point in discussing if people wont discuss.
  • Not discussing is just another way of controlling topics.
  • I raised the question of a blanket ruling for non-political topics, here, because I agree that political topics should be handled sensitively and accurately.
  • No one answered it and so I took it as a green light. It is as simple as that.

If folks are happy stalking, as Snowded apparently is, I am happy for them to fiddling away however it pleases them. Live and let live, I say. --Triton Rocker (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Enjoy your holiday, Black Kite! TFOWR 09:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the details

I am sorry but I raised discussion about non-political use and there were no objections to doing so.

I want you to look closer at some of the details here.

  • The "Arts and Crafts Movement flourished between 1880 and 1910 - historical fact.

Ghmyrtle

  • Ghmyrtle inserts link to Great Britain here - factually erroneous. (Great Britain was a state which existed between 1707 to 1801).
  • Ghmyrtle, an Welsh editor who has been systematically removing the term British Isles, inserts a sub-title to the United Kingdom here - yet the section includes reference to the A&C Movement in Ireland. (FACTUALLY - it was an expression of Irish nationalism).

Snowded

Looking at Snowded for a moment, for example, here. He clearly states his level of knowledge

  • "(Arthurian legends in terms of location all refer to the Island of Britain as far as I know - please supply reference for use of wider geographical term)"
  • FACT - Geoffrey of Monmouth, who basically started the myth records Arthur active in England, Scotland, Ireland, France and Isle of Man.
  • He states the inclusions of the British Isles and France here is not supported "by a recognisable historian or Arthurian scholar"
  • FACT - it is a position taken and documented by Geoffrey Ashe who wrote and was referenced in the ref given.

I could go on ...

(sigh) Just for the records I said that the locations (in the context of discussing Avalon) were in the Island of Britain, which is not the same as denying that some of the legends do not have Arthur campaigning in France, Ireland etc. The Burgundy location is based on an association of another character with Arthur which is controversial - several scholars think it is Ambrosious and the similarly of the name is just not convincing. I was surprised when you referenced Ashe as providing the introduction to a book that looked like a tourist promotional site. I haven't had a chance to check the degree to which writing an introduction is an endorsement of that theory. However when another editor responded to the reasonable request for a full quote I accepted the change for the French Town concerned. --Snowded TALK 09:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

So, you see someone edit warring over the term British Isles ... I see a team of nationalistically inspired POV-sters (look at their user pages) edit warring to insert a lot of uninformed and inaccurate statements. Or remove accurate one.

What is the Wikipedia's accuracy or defending nationalistic status quos?

Ignoring discussion

I raised the discussion. There were no objections. That is a green light to edit. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The link I added to Great Britain was to the island, not the former kingdom. TritonRocker's point re Ireland (in Arts and Crafts Movement) seems valid - I didn't pick up that particular ref. I'm happy to leave discussions on BI matters generally to the task force - I'll join in those discussions when I feel I need to. The assertion that I've been "systematically removing the term British Isles" is untrue. Whether or not I'm "Welsh" depends on your definition! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
We're happy to have you Ghmyrtle, and to be fair to Triton that reference does say that it started in England.--Snowded TALK 09:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beauty (album)

I noticed you closed this afd and redirected to Neutral Milk Hotel. This is actually a notable release. Even if it were considered a demo recording, it was distributed (self-released) among the artists of the elephant 6 collective. This can be noted on page 9 of Kim Cooper's In The Aeroplane Over The Sea (33 1/3), 2005. The threshold for notability with regard to albums is explained by WP:NALBUMS, "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I feel that for this particular case, this coverage exists. riffic (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not accurate to call it a Demo album, and it is very notable. Ridernyc (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Also it was released, as stated Jeff Mangum would release his own projects on cassette tape. These were finished projects, not demos. Ridernyc (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Do you remember having to protect Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (which I found under the title Joint Strike Fighter - redirects there) on July 21 due to excessive vandalism? This might be of interest to you regarding the subject; I actually found a link to this in MSN, of all places. The vandalism came from CFB Cold Lake, Alberta. (CFB = Canadian Forces Base, I think.) The article directed me to the edits that were vandalism on July 20-21. Interesting that the Canadian Forces is trying to alter the information, isn't it? I'm surprised we don't block CFB from editing anonymously...one IP alone has had MANY cases of disruptive editing. *LOL*

NEway, just thought you might find that of interest. CycloneGU (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

200x in theatre

Can you userfy those articles that were deleted? BOVINEBOY2008 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

newbie questions

Hello

I'm a brand new contributor, please excuse my ignorance.

I tried to create a new page called "List of self-referential songs" but got this message:

A page with this title has previously been deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.
22:45, 3 September 2007 Black Kite (talk | contribs) deleted "List of self-referential songs" ‎ (per AfD:content was: ... Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled ...- The nomination page for this article already existed when thi...')

I tried and failed to find anything relevant on or around that date. Can you tell me why the original page was deleted, and how I should have found that information?

Thank you!

Ernie.bornheimer (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Forsts23

I've asked Stifle about user:Forsts23 who I think is in violation of sanctions (see Forsts23 talk page) and shouldn't be doing any Armenian related edits. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

re: List of Auto Club 500 broadcasters AFD

As the nom, you may want to tag the table/article. - J Greb (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

BI question

...here. Seems reasonable, if that's how you've done it in the past. I'd expect a short-term up-tick in work, followed a longer-term decrease in grief... Thoughts? TFOWR 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think a brutal approach to personal remarks and generalised accusation is long overdue. I've got a thick skin so I am happy to live with Triton's multiple lectures and the various conspiracy theories but it is getting very wearing and the atmosphere does not encourage looking at each case on its merits. --Snowded TALK 19:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Snowded, it needs to get very firm now - the current situation is ridiculous and makes sensible discussion virtually impossible. I wouldn't just single out Triton, there are others as well, but I'm sure TFOWR is well aware of that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, why involve Black Kite? The point I was made on the talk page was that I disagreed with a case by case approach on such a vast subject area (flora and fauna of the British Isles). It is an impossible proposal to manage and, unless you can provide the requested explanation of why we should make an inaccurate blanket exclusion of the Isle of Man and Channel Islands by using the term 'Great Britain and Ireland' it makes no sense.
You could not come up with explanation why we should exclude the Isle of Man and Channel Islands and so, instead, I find you here trying to get an admin to punish me.
One thing I would like to say as a newcomers to the debate. I, personally, had no idea what was going on --- and how long it had been going on for --- until someone started slapping me around punitively reverting all my work. It took me a while to discover what was going on and where. This is why I would like to help others get up to speed up on it all with stuff like a history and list of participants. Without it, it feels like walking into guerilla warfare.
I think what would improve relationships vastly is that people stuck to the talk page and did not invest their energy spreading it over numerous other admin pages or attempting to drag in others who may well wield the power to block and ban who ever they feel like --- but are otherwise not involved in creating the topics nor are qualified in the subject matter in question.
This is what, to newcomers, does look and feel like an invasive culture of snooping and snitching and tripping others up in service of various POVs. To be honest, you all really ought to be big enough to accept that point of view from a newcomer and reflect upon it fairly.
Newcomers are obviously at a disadvantage, not know how to handle the software and systems. It feels like bullying.
Kite, please stop removing items from my talk page. --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want things removed from your talkpage, don't put things on there that need to be removed per our policies. Your issue with "snitching" is a non-issue. If you edit in a way that you've been clearly informed is not allowed, then clearly someone is going to call you on it. That isn't "snitching", it's collaborative editing. A collaborative environment needs rules and guidelines, and it need everyone to follow them. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
If there is to be a change in the "tolerance" levels over on BISE people need to be clearly informed first that certain things they have been allowed to say previously are no longer tolerated, so we all know where we stand. This "tolerance level" change should also be introduced at the same time as agreeing to the limits on the number of cases that can be introduced per editor or at a time. If we are going to clean up BISE it may as well sort all the issues out once so we can have a fresh start. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's a requirement for changes in the tolerance levels. If people can't stop commenting on the editor rather than the content then there are simple ways of ensuring that they can't continue that behaviour. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I do have some sympathy with some of Triton Rocker's points. Arguing over every plant and insect is becoming stupid, and making Wikipedia look stupid in my opinion. Someone seems to have decided that you actually can't describe flora in terms of the British Isles - despite not only my having a shelf full of Floras of the British Isles, the current standard being Staces New Flora of the British Isles (with a ringing endorsement from the The Irish Naturalist Journal in the Product description section), but there being a society dedicated to same, with a website full of up to date information on the flora of the...yes, British Isles. Normally I have no problem with the alternate expressions - there are no long rivers or high mountains in the Outer Islands - but we should have fixed an agreement that the term is the one to use for flora and fauna (if there are any plants/critters that are found ONLY in the Republic of Ireland, then the article can just say that, if that keeps everyone happy), and stop arguing over every grass and bloody invertibrate. It would keep your workload down as well. </rant> Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Copied in less ranty form to [2]. Probably better discussed there.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Benik Afobe

I've been working on this article you userfied at User:Fences and windows/Benik Afobe after the AfD. I think it shows notability now. There's a crappy unsourced version now at Benik Afobe; I asked the prodder if he thought the draft was OK for userspace, and he thinks it is: User talk:Scapler#Benik Afobe. What's your opinion? Can/should I move it back, or should I go to DRV? Fences&Windows 23:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, now live. I usually take no interest in football, but I will keep an eye on Afobe to see if he fulfils his early promise. Fences&Windows 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page restored

User:UpstateNYer/AlbanyCityHall is a temporary staging area for a rewrite of that article. Please do not delete it again. Thanks. upstateNYer 22:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

HA! Woops, I meant for it to be at that link. I'll move it. My bad. :) upstateNYer 22:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Already done it :) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Josh Isbell

Can you re-delete this please? Author re-made it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ mazca talk 20:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD close on Galactic Quadrant

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic quadrant? I believe the result of "delete" was a misreading and that "no consensus" would have been more appropriate. My count is 7 delete votes, 5 keep votes (one said "DON'T Delete"), 1 move, and 1 rewrite (and it was rewritten and expanded significantly after the rewrite vote). Moreover, the majority of the delete votes were concerned only with the version that was purely dealing with star trek. There was only one delete vote made after the incorporation of the real-world material, and it obviously did not notice all the non-trekky stuff the article dealt with. Please consider revisiting your decision and perhaps changing it to "no-consensus" and restoring the article. If you do, then I can continue to expand upon the real-world concept and condense the trekky stuff as necessary. —CodeHydro 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  • The real-world article has been moved to Galactic quadrant. I have snipped much of the spurious Trek trivia but a reasonable section remains which could be further slimmed down. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think you did a great job slimming down the trekky part of the article. I went through what you left with a fine comb to try to remove plot summary that did not describe the quadrants and could not find any. While I must admit that virtually all my knowledge of the series comes from researching this article, I think you may have been slightly over-zealous in cutting back on the Bajoran wormhole since the whole seven seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine takes place around it. Thus, I have expanded that section slightly. Nonethless, I'll keep working on expanding the real-world part as to decrease the relative share of article space for the trekkies. Thanks! —CodeHydro 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

John Barrowman

Hey, good work catching all that crap. I took a look into it (he's on my watchlist from when I did the GA review way back) and it's just one IP adding the same crap all over WP (including the help desk, which was a mess to RevDel). I've deleted all the remaining revisions and blocked the IP, so I'm wondering if you think pending changes might be a viable alternative to semi prot? I'm not the biggest fan of PC, but Barrowman isn't normally a heavy vandalism target, so I think it might be worth a try. Just a suggestion, I don;t feel strongly enough to trample all over your protection. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C.

Hi. I normally find your AfD closures highly impressive, but I was very surprised by this one. I was pretty sure that the closing admin would opt for no consensus. I hope that you won't be upset if I take it to DRV when I have some time. --Dweller (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed about the count - a lot of the discussion, on both sides, in that AfD was completely off-topic in terms of deletion policy. I saw that there were a number of other games at AfD at the same time, but didn't bother looking into any of the others. This one I recalled as having generated lots of coverage then and since - coverage that wasn't just match reports. I believe therefore it's a game of historic importance demonstrable as being beyond the norm. I thought I'd demonstrated it at the AfD. Perhaps if some of the keep opinions had been less fluffy it wouldn't have distracted attention away from what I was arguing and I might have persuaded some of those who'd opted delete early on. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Although I !voted delete, I wouldn't worry Dweller. It would seem that there is a clique of people intent on accusing anyone that dares to challenge their interpretations of policy in this matter of engaging in personal attacks. For the record I do think that Black Kite has closed all recent football AfDs correctly, some of which I was happy about, some of which I wasn't. Regards, --WFC-- 00:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U that might interest you

User:TMC1982 is serial bad article creator might you give your view here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You have an obvious anti-NASCAR bias

Why do you insist on having every single broadcasting related article deleted. Do you even bother following or know anything about NASCAR to begin with!? You do know that there are numerous races, week by week beginning in February (with the Daytona 500). That's just the way it is. What is you're rationale for whether or not a broadcasting information is "worthy enough" for Wikipedia? What, depending on the length of the broadcast information!? TMC1982 (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Broadcasting Lists

Since you think they should be deleted, here is a full category of them: Category:Lists of sporting event broadcasters --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 01:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that. Some are reasonable articles, some are a list of trivia. Will take me while to get through them. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I am fine with all of NASCAR broadcastings list go exept the List of Daytona 500 broadcasters because it is the second most popular race other than the Indianapolis 500. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's why I left that one alone. Despite not being American, I do know the importance of Daytona. We have Formula 1 instead, I'll be looking there next :) Black Kite (t) (c) 01:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Where you have only did NASCAR articles, it seemed that you were anti-NASCAR, like the above one. I read the policies, and your are right. All those articles do is just waste space. One more question, what would happen if the tables get to large? --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 01:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I'd have to look at each one individually, really. That'll have to be tomorrow, though, because it's 2am here :) Black Kite (t) (c) 01:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker

He does not seem to get it. O Fenian (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Auto Club 500 broadcasters

Hello Black Kite. I am seriously considering a mass AFD for the 49 other articles you mentioned in the above deletion discussion, per the rationale you and the commenters gave. Do you think that would be a good idea? Airplaneman ✈ 20:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I was looking at List of Brickyard 400 broadcasters, where the prod was contested. I'll keep an eye out. Airplaneman ✈ 20:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_32&oldid=1150001043"