User talk:Black Kite/Archive 37

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sardar Jaff

Hello Black Kite. Please note that the nomination included five other articles. Thank you. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Aquarian Age

I was going to speedy this to move Aquarian Age TCG over it, but I'd rather avoid the dramaz. Any thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't see the problem really - I'd do that and stick a hatnote on the article that replaces it. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (2nd nomination)

Given the very lengthy discussions of different aspects of policy, sourcing, etc in this discussion, I was very disappointed to see no analysis of the debate, especially since you closed it as "no consensus", which doesn't help in terms of moving forwards. I can see that is was a reasonable closure (and given the nomination was for the same reasons as the recent first debate that also ended this way, should have been entirely forseeable by the nominator), it just would have been better with a summary so things don't have to be rehashed every time a list is up for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright/BLP/RS/NPOV worries

Hi Black Kite!

Thanks for helping (with the Reaper Eternal) to delete the copyright violations on Prodemca and Coalition for a Democratic Majority. That IP did about 15 more similar uploadings of articles from disinfopedia, on August 20, according to his edit summaries. (In the two cases I checked, I found earlier copyrighted sources in a minute of Google searching.) I suspect that all involve copyright violations.

However, I am tired now, and I suspect that you and Reaper Eternal are more adept with CSD and copyright violations. Would you look at some of those articles, please?

Thanks again for your help.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


P.S. As "disinfopedia"'s name might suggest, the topics concern networks of conservative, liberal, or lib-lab (liberal labour) writers and organizations. I noticed that a common statement would be "A was funded/associated with B", followed by some lengthy discussion of a scandal by B, clearly to smear by association. In the cases I looked at, the citations were from leftwing think tanks, (at least one good, some perhaps not the best), rather than the usual reliable sources. So I note NPOV/RS/BLP worries, also, because these articles all name names, lots of names.

(I'll put a copy of this at RE's page.)

Hi again! I looked at all of the articles and tagged those with blatant problems and those with sections of copyright infringement. Your team works fast. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Studio 54

I think we might have a new sockpuppet for the WikAdvisor case, who has gone back to editing the same information in the Studio 54 article. Is there a way to add a new IP address to that sockpuppet case you closed? --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I semi-protected the article for a month instead. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Beckwith

You barely beat me to this. I wasn't sure on whether to close this as "delete" or "no consensus" (probably "delete") but in either case it would have been followed up with a redirect to Charity:_water#Rachel_Beckwith (an article that survived a previous AFD but is still in a sorry state) as an editorial decision. Therefore, I created the redirect anyway. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  • That's fine, I was thinking about doing that myself to be honest but I couldn't really close the AfD that way for obvious reasons. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams Article

This article has non-verified information about Stephanie Adams that needs to be removed right away, claiming her husband and son's name, which are not on her sites (or the person this other IP user claims has on his site) and must therefore be private information. 108.41.21.144 (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Awan (Pakistan)

Hi Black Kite

It was Palltrast who first raised concerns about an edit war taking place, in relation to the above article. I am reproducing the message I sent him, for your attention, as I hope you can help to resolve this dispute speedily - presently, Alamsherkhan is abusing his editing privileges, and ruining an article I have spent a fair amount of time improving and maintaining: 

"Hi Palltrast. Thank you for getting in touch with me. I appreciate what you have to say regarding me being engaged in what seems to be an edit war with Alamsherkhan. However, before you got in touch with me, I did leave a message on his page outlining basic Wiki rules, guidelines and etiquette. I don't expect you to be au fait with the history of the Awan tribe, but in a nutshell, this is the issue: the Awans are a Punjabi tribe, predominantly residing in Pakistan (I myself belong to the tribe, though I'm a born and bred Londoner). The majority of the tribe claims to be descended from Arab ancestors, and though this claim is disputed by some, this tradition forms a core belief of the members of this tribe, and is inextricably tied to their identity. As such, the article, from the outset, makes reference to this putative claim. Furthermore, the article also contains fully referenced citations that elaborate upon this issue to varying degrees, including the viewpoints of those who both agree and disagree with the assertions made by the bulk of the Awan tribe, vis-a-vis its origins - in fact, no serious study of the Awans omits reference to this issue (regardless of whether or not the author in question agrees with these traditional claims), and it follows that it will invariably form a relevant and central part of the Wiki article relating to the Awans; as such, not only have I made reference to this (wherever appropriate), I have also ensured that wherever possible, each and every one of the points made regarding this issue, is substantiated by fully referenced source material, ranging from commentators belonging to both the East and West, and those who undertook a study of the tribe during the era of the British Raj, all the way up to contemporary historians and anthropologists. Furthermore, at no point have I definitively stated that the Awans are of Arab origin, and in the interests of balance and neutrality, I have also presented the opinions of those who reject the Awans' claim to Arab descent (again, sourced from fully referenced material). Despite this, because Alamsherkhan does not believe that the Awans are of Arab origin (an opinion he is entitled to), he is arbitrarily and without any justification at all, deleting all such references (including widely acknowledged works such as those compiled by British colonial administrators, and more recent and widely respected studies such as those undertaken by Alison Shaw, a Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University), so that the article is in keeping with his personal point of view. Furthermore, he is adding his own unsubstantiated viewpoints to the article, and because it appears that English isn't his first language, not only does the article not flow properly due to him removing material that is actually referenced (unlike his additions), it is also incoherent in parts due to grammatical errors. As such, I contacted him, and was perfectly civil and courteous in requesting that he desist from indulging in non-constructive vandalism, and that if he did want to add material to the article that reflects his point of view and countered the opinions of authors that have already been cited, then he was most welcome to do so, as long as he could substantiate his additions with appropriate references. However, he has completely ignored this, and he continues to make a mess of the article, and remove valid, important and fully referenced material that I have spent a great deal of time adding to the article (in fact, I have made every effort to ensure that almost all of the additions made to the article are fully referenced, and accurate). Therefore Alamsherkhan's actions are not only unfair, they are also unacceptable. Please feel free to look through the message I left on his user page, as well as the edit history of the article in question. Alamsherkhan has completely ignored my attempts to reason with him, so I would appreciate any assistance you could provide in restoring the article to the last edit I made."

I thank you in advance for any assistance you could provide me with, in settling this matter.

Regards

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for protectecting the article from editing, but I want to bring into your notice one thing. The article according to the last edit made by Rawalpindi Express contains 41 references, but Alam Sher Khan deleted first five references in his last edit, and you have protected the article with only 36 references.
It is the policy of Wikipedia that, "Good articles start with a brief lead section introducing the topic." Please compare this brief lead section of both versions. You must also see the history of contributions of both users. Rawalpindi Express is giving justification in edit summary of every edit, while Alamsherkhan is deleting, removing referenced material,referenced citations and referenced quotes from this article without any edit summary, and thus he is engaging in non-constructive vandalism. And you have protected the article on his last edit.
Rawalpindi Express has long contributing history with positive edits against vandalism, but Alamsherkhan is a new user with a history of engaging in non-constructive vandalism.
It is therefore requested that the the article should be restored to the last edit made by Rawalpindi Express, so that till the disputes have been resolved, the standard, principles and guidelines of Wikipedia must be maintained.
Regards Averroist (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
In that case, you will need to make an editprotected request at the talk page of the article. In the case of protection, admins cannot make a judgment on the state of the article - see The Wrong Version. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian Fundamentalism

I'm curious about this: [[1]]

You said: "The result was no consensus. Absolutely no consensus to do anything here, .... Black Kite (t) (c) 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)"

The vote was 8 keeps, with 10 deletes, with several deletes (3) changed to keeps. The last group (3) showing a leaning toward deletion. With one vote not clearly stated. How does that tally to no consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, 8 v 10 is pretty much the definition of "No Consensus" - you are of course welcome to take the decision to WP:DRV if you wish. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Darcus Howe

3RR warning given to Renseim. I think he is actually at 4RR or so by now, but the insertion of material contrary to talk page mention that it was violative of WP:BLP to enter a youtube video as a ref and to use his own personal interpretations thereof seem to elude his notice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


Diffs now:

[2] reverted Pigonthewing at 14:36 10 August

[3] reverted an IP at 14:47 10 Aug

[4] reverted Collect at 15:10 10 Aug

[5] reverted IP at 15:31 10 Aug

[6] reverted Collect at 15:38 10 August

[7] reverted Cameron Scott at 15:33 10 August


Making 6RR in under a single hour. Renseim is aware of 3RR as he just had you block another user for 31 hours.

Notice of warning at [8] 15:44 10 Aug

I think this is sufficient material for you? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Yeah, pretty obvious. Should know better. Blocked for 31h. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Whiz kid AFD close?

A few days ago, you closed the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Whiz kid as delete. However, during that AFDs run, the article in question was moved to Whiz kid, which is still there (with the AFD notice on it, even). I think it should have been deleted. gnfnrf (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Im sure he will be back that was his third ip in three days would you also protect Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues as this is where it all started. Thanks again he has been tormenting me and other colleagues in all honesty none of us have done much editing other than responding to whats been happening with this.Warburton1368 (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the gratitude, and also express the fear that the IP will simply be back under a new incarnation soon enough. He has been increasingly disruptive, and has started posting sarcastic comments on people's talk pages. Thanks for all you've done so far though, we shall continue to monitor. Regards, GiantSnowman 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
i had requested protection on that page at page protection requests where i think he has now shown up on a new ip as 94.14.62.195. Warburton1368 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Blocked as well. Considering a rangeblock at the moment. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Has also edited from 94.2.38.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.4.165.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 94.2.51.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), among others no doubt. GiantSnowman 00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyway thanks for all your help. Warburton1368 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe he may have appeared again under User:PorridgeGobbler just reverted edits at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues would you be able to look or should i report somewhere. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Now fairly certain its him he has taken to the talk page but his edit notes are almost identical. He clearly hasnt changed as his first edit he did was identical to his actions previously. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Here as well Gavin Reilly? Adam4267 (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Note - User_talk:PorridgeGobbler. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, PorridgeGobbler came here and per unblock asked permission to vote in this AFD. I said that I couldn't see a reason not to and he duly voted. He then voted at another AFD here and again I see nothing wrong with this. He then made to edits to this player and I am not sure what to make of it. He did not ask permission although the article is not related to his previous editing pattern it is related to Scottish football. However, the edits were positive so I do not know if he has broken any rules/agreements I thought it best to point out to you. Adam4267 (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • If his edits are constructive that's not a problem. If any are contentious (i.e. another editor disagrees), he must follow the WP:BRD protocol. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay thanks for clarification. Adam4267 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

PorridgeGobbler block and DRN listing

I'm a neutral working at WP:DRN. I'm embarrassed to admit that as long as I've been around here I'm still not certain about the mechanical details of blocking. Is PorridgeGobbler able to participate in the DRN discussion, in light of your block of him? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I've figured it out: he's not able to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Unusual You

Hello, I just wanted you to review the information I added here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unusual_You&oldid=443813192 And please also read the discussion page with the argument that happened. This is regarding the incidents with the users Xwomanizerx and Ending-start. Thank you, Nickyp88 (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rock Springs Massacre list

I'm not sure why I wasn't notified of the discussion for deletion concerning List of victims of the Rock Springs Massacre. It seems like bad etiquette (I know that's not your fault) but as the primary editor of both the main article and the list I should have been notified. Should I go ahead and merge the list? The only reason I broke it out in the first place is because it was suggested I do so in the run up the FA nomination for Rock Springs Massacre. I guess my main issues are 1) Why wasn't I notified and therefore able to take part in the discussion and 2) Will the merger in any way affect the featured article status of the main article, because if it will I would rather just include an external link to the list of victims. Any thoughts you have on these issues would be helpful. Would it be possible to reopen the AFD so that I can have a say at least, regardless of whether it changes the outcome (and I'm not that wedded to any article, even ones I created for very specific reasons) I do think I should be able to have a say. Thanks for listening. IvoShandor (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi. Yes, it would have been better if you had been notified, I'm not sure why you weren't. To be honest, I don't see how merging the list back into the article will affect its status - IMHO it's a small enough list (especially if you formatted it into columns) that I'm unsure why it was broken out to begin with. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User Juliestewart3

After you blocked this person for 48 hours, they are back to their old tricks. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Ravenscroft32 (talk)

ANI

Hi Black Kite, I would be happy to discuss any concerns that you have about my editing. I worked very hard to get my editing privileges restored and I don't want to lose them again. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
Message added 18:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
Message added 18:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3RRN

Hi Black Kite, I didn't see an exemption to 3RR for removing unsourced content. I looked here. Did I miss something? Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • No, my point was that some of his edits weren't straight reverts - in fact I only count three, which of course doesn't technically breach 3RR. Now of course 3RR isn't a right, and editors can be blocked without exceeding it, but when I added the fact that at least two of the reverts were removing unsourced information, then I felt that a block for edit-warring would not be reasonable - and, to be honest, wouldn't help with the issues that exist on the page. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I also get mixed up with 3RR. Wondering if you did not count "2nd revert"? (diff) It looks like all he did was add a picture, but in actuality he reverted my placement of the picture lower in the article. If you didn't count it, and should have, that would be 4 reverts. – Lionel (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam linker

78.21.241.222 - this person is linking to spam sites (see history of True Blood).Ravenscroft32 (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re:_.22User:Roscelese_uses_straw_man_to_accuse_me_of_anti-Semitism.22_above_.28closed.29

You have shown moderation and common sense in the past. Can you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re:_.22User:Roscelese_uses_straw_man_to_accuse_me_of_anti-Semitism.22_above_.28closed.29? People are getting things precisely backwards there. Specially in my case.

PS: I hope this isn't considered canvassing, since you are an uninvolved admin with no "dog in the fight". If this is considered canvassing, then please tell me and then forgive me. Thanks.

My case too. I'm innocent i tell ya. Innocent!– Lionel (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about canvasing

If it makes you feel better, I'd be willing to notify EVERYONE who voted on the Fuzors nomination about the Maximal Nomination, except those who already voted in both, that should remove any hint of bias. I'm also notifying both debates about one of the anon editors being a sock puppeteer. Mathewignash (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent closure

You recently closed "More signatures of living people" but what about the RFC? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  • That will be for those involved in the issue to start. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Messages below here please


Why did you(or somebody) send me a notice about the Angels(Law and Order Special Victims Unit) article? I began the Angels article in 2001 approx. BF (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Using the WP:PROD tag in Twinkle sends an automated message to the person that started the article (and it is considered polite to notify them anyway). Black Kite (t) (c) 16:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Favor

Please review Emotional Backgammon, and knock off the {{new unreviewed article}} template. I added the template myself, and requested review. It's been waiting, and I had hoped to get a WP:DYK out of it. Oh well. Anyways, I think you'll find most everything in order. --Lexein (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks fine, though I have to say I've never been a fan of things being sourced to Imdb. Apart from that, no problems. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I generally try to avoid it. It's a struggle. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WTF?

What's this rubbish about an IPvandal being engaged in "edit warring"? There's no edit war! The vandal has been vandalising, and others have been reverting. How does semi-legitimising his actions by calling it an edit war help? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I was wondering if anyone would notice. To be honest I hit the wrong block reason when I blocked them - it seemed sensible to keep the talkpage notice consistent, and for a temporary block on a dynamic IP it isn't really going to make a difference. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Well yes. OK. I was over-reacting. Tell you what - I'll pretend I didn't notice if you do too. OK? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For blocking User:Utøyakiller faster than I could warn them to stop. Cerejota (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Medes

Thanks, several socks at that article (pov as usual):

"Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Confirmed the following are the same: Xano95 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • SUL • checkuser) Bokan995 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • SUL • checkuser) Xani95 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • SUL • checkuser) TNXMan 9:41 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: Only did stuff quickly here, blocked 2 socks, 88.90.56.34 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) is autoblocked. Open to actions on the master, which I didn't look into. -- DQ (t) (e) 10:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) Clerk note: I'll assume some good faith and let the master off with a warning for now. Relist as necessary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 3:53 am, Today (UTC+1)"

I'm afraid I've lost my good faith with this editor. Dougweller (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

ATF dispute

Please see WP:AN3#User:AceD reported by reported by User:Computer Guy 2 (Result: Protected) which is about Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Let me know if you would do anything differently. After you imposed semi protection on August 8, it looks like the IP reactivated a long-dormant account, User:AceD, to continue the battle. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's probably the best thing to do. It's not sockpuppetry as such, I suppose, but it's certainly trying to end-run round protection. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... question

I'm not trying to change the length of the block you just gave: I'm just intrigued by the duration. 31h? 12, I could understand - 24, 36... but 31? I assume there's a simple answer, probably involving time zones, but I'd like to know for sure. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  • 31h is a standard block time in the admin blocking page; the reason is this. Because people generally edit at the same times of day, a 24h block means they are able to edit again in their "usual" window. A 31h block pushes that back often to a time when they would normally not edit. It was often found that 24h blocks meant that people merely logged out and then started again the next day with the same behaviour that caused them to be blocked (because they were still "angry" at being blocked), whilst 31h often meant their editing pattern was broken up and they would think about what they were doing. 55h (2days + 7h) is also a standard block length. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow. I learn something new every day. Thanks. Absconded Northerner (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A million thanks

I am very grateful for this and I assure you I won't attack anyone in future. Yes, my intention is indeed to avoid the editor; any comments posted on a subject where we may cross paths will now be addressed to the entire community and I shall choose my words so that it is clear I am not picking on any one individual. In addition, as I stated, I shall remove the poor taste remark. It will still be visible in history but its absence will serve as a symbol that I have withdrawn the statement. Thanks for your position and for demonstrating good administration. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisting

Re: this blacklist addition ... can you also update the Aug-2011 info at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log with a perma-link to any relevant discussions or evidence for the addition? (per the header at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist which mentions that "All additions to this blacklist must also be logged"). Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JohnLloydScharf

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of JohnLloydScharf (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JohnLloydScharf. -- Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokan995. Pretty obvious, same provider and location as the previous blocked sock. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Something is still wrong as the main SPI page shows the old case, not the new one. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
And thanks again. It's surely time for a block on Bokan995 for persistent sockpuppetry? (Is that two words or one?). Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes - will hang on for the SPI. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision Postcards

I recently readed WP:NFCC and they said that I have to add more rationale, NFCC said that the file will be removed from article because it is lack of rationale and did I should have to add more information to pass all 10 criterias of NFCC?--Phanuruch8555 (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

constant removal of tags

I saw your username in the ANI boards and I thought it would be better asking directly to an admin than bringing such a silly issue to ANI. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pure_blood_theory_in_Korea&curid=28344314&action=history neutrality and original research tags are being removed when there is clearly still issues and problems with the page. Would you mind glossing over it? It would only take a second. Much appreciated.KaraKamilia (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller/Hrafn ANI thread

Please clarify to what extent you still endorse Cerejoto's baseless accusations against me, in light of my response to him. I asked you this here, but the thread is now currently closed due to non-admin Mathsci's action. Drrll (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I have no opinion on the meatpuppetry claim, but otherwise I thought Cerejota summed up the issues on both sides quite well. I also have no real connection with Dougweller (the reason for my posting to his talkpage a number of times recently was because of an outbreak of sockpuppetry on an article we were both watching). Since I don't edit political or socio-political articles much, I don't interact with Hrafn much either - the diff you supply was to do with a re-run of an AfD on which he had commented previously. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 11:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

P Chips Frauds

Hi. This is to request an undeletion of the article "P Chips Frauds." It is not an attack page because most companies listed in the article or their managers were convicted by court decisions after judges found that frauds have been committed by people involved with those companies. The article is relevant to investors of Hong Kong-listed companies, their bankers, brokers, dealers, suppliers, customers, managers and employees. It is also relevant to students of modern finance, legal studies, current affairs and historians with a focus in China. Censoredchinese (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  • That's as may be, but consensus was to delete, and it would certainly need to be re-written in a more neutral and better sourced way. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

TMNT vandal

I would just like to point out to you something I've gathered over the past few years, as the vandal hitting the TMNT pages is none other than the same one who has been hitting Power Rangers ones for the past 5 years.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Although edits like this should make it pretty obvious.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Filter

Couldn't you think of a better way to make replies to your comments possible?

I'm fully aware what triggered your censorship filter (fucking), that doesn't make it right. --79.223.29.3 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The filters, unfortunately, have to work on the basis of greatest functionality. It's not a censorship issue. Whilst there are times when profanity is entirely unremarkable on talkpages, I'm sure you understand that the majority of the time they are used for disruptive purposes, especially by IP editors (that's nothing against IP users as such, but again working on the metrics of such things). Black Kite (t) (c) 22:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree. Beyond simple vandalism, you have no right to restrict anyone's speech. Evidently, you(r filter) also lack capacity to discern use of language (I'm not surprised), so you should stop censoring right now. --79.223.29.3 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Obviously the filter is unable to discern between a valid use of a profanity (rare) and an invalid use of one (far more likely). However, an IP editor whose edit is rejected by that filter has the option of re-phrasing it, so it is technically not censorship (the filter, for example, would not reject "screwed up" as opposed to "fucked up"). Such an editor also has the option of registering a username; edits by autoconfirmed users are not filtered (by that particular filter anyway). Regardless, objections to a particular filter should be raised at WT:FILTER; I have no powers to alter the parameters of such filters. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Re-phrase or be silenced, this is of course censorship. Par for the course on Wikipedia that only IPs are affected. --79.223.29.3 (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
There's no law entitling you to use profanity on this website, either. The edit filter doesn't silence you at all, just use your big boy words and be civil, and you'll get along fine here. Dayewalker (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas Berggruen

well seems that party animal is the oxford dictionary for someone attending many parties.!!!

--Bioplus (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 England riots

Hello there, I've just noticed that FactController has just edited the infobox [9] on 2011 England riots in direct contravention of consensus (Talk:2011 England riots/Archive 9#Unbalanced weight given to locations in infobox), yet again. I've lost count of the number of times he's done this. I really think his editing on that article is a problem. He has no grasp of the requirement to observe consensus, and he is clearly on a mission to tune this article to present the idea that the riots outside London were insignificant. I won't say anything stronger than that but I could. I'm requesting your intervention as an administrator. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 21:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Lewisistheone1991 socks

Any chance you could block 206.188.55.235 and 71.35.180.62, which appear to be Lewisistheone1991 quacking loudly? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Blocked the latter, the other hasn't edited for a while. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Thisthat2011

Hello BK. Please consider making an entry in WP:RESTRICT for the topic ban you just enacted for this editor. This helps to keep these decisions from being lost or being disputed in the future by the subject. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Ah, there it is. I knew there was somewhere I had to post this, but I couldn't find it. I'd emailed a couple of other people asking rather than embarrass myself. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just caught that myself. Sorry bout the mix up. Mobaod (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


berggruen

no analogy with a fight or winning, just about step one in this disscussion. and for the claim re berggruen buying wikipedia this was only an analogy to berggruen claiming that he bough a dutch magazin that portrayed him to positively !!!???!!! http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,744582,00.html --Bioplus (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioplus (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases

If there isn't clear consensus, surely leaving it open and relisting it a second time would be better? Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Not really. If there isn't any consensus in two weeks, there probably isn't going to be any in three weeks. The only articles I 2nd-relist are BLPs, for obvious reasons. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I mistook your facepalm for a talk to the hand. As I wrote on the 3RR page, I apologize for my misunderstanding and for my over-reaction. (I can understand the face-palm feeling.) The trout business was small beans in comparison. Again, I'm very sorry for the flame up.

I post this here, because my unjustified complaint remains in this page's history, and so I feel that a serious apology must remain in the history.

Again, I'm sorry for misunderstanding your meme. I should apologize further for my failure to search for an alternative meaning of FacePalm, which compounded my confusion with a violation of WP:AGF and with sloth.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem at all. I can understand why you reacted as you did now. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That's very kind of you.
Swedish television suffers from too much Jerry Springer and too little Big Bang Theory.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
As does TV here (UK) as well ... Black Kite (t) (c) 17:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pointless Saturday block for traditional Jewish editor

Regarding the 48hr block of Debresser, I ask whether you would consider extending this by 24hrs, as I have good reason to presume Debresser does not ever edit wikipedia on Saturdays, so in effect his block would only last effectively for 24hrs. Chesdovi (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Interesting point. I will raise it elsewhere. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Pardon my jumping in here, but for what it's worth, I don't think it would be appropriate to formulate or adjust a block length on this basis (unless perhaps there are extraordinary circumstances, such as a pattern of an editor's misbehaving just before going off line). Far better stayed away from, IMHO. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts too, I just thought it was an interesting point - there's currently a thread at WP:AN if anyone wants to chime in. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems Debresser has not learnt his lesson as he continues to enforce his POV without going to talk: [13]. He is instigating further edit-wars. Chesdovi (talk)
Since I can't read it, does that source actually back up the claim? What does it say? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I created a string of new articles and Debresser keeps on removing the word Palestine from them all. Take this for example [14]. It was created years ago based on this source [15] and included the word Palestinian. Debresser seems to be enforcing his POV without any community wide support to do so. The fact that there may soon be a rfc of DRN on the matter does not mean that Debresser can make sure all pages are sans "Palestine" until a final descision is reached. Chesdovi (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It continues: [16]. Chesdovi (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Long term vandal stopping

Seeing as you have some experience in dealing with vandals who hit articles on pop culture, perhaps you can help me stem the edits of this individual who has on multiple occasions been a pain in the ass for people on various articles. However, he seems to inhabit two ranges: 75.33.32.0 - 75.33.47.255 and 75.33.48.0 - 75.33.63.255, and I am having difficulty finding other IPs he has used to vandalize Power Rangers Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of Power Rangers Samurai episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). What do you suggest should be done in the interrim?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it a limited number of articles? If so, semi-ing would be the best thing to do. The range (75.33.32.0/19) is moderately busy. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

I believe he went on wikibreak; see the notice at the top of his userpages. I believe that image you linked to is of the wrong person. I went ahead and uploaded another one at commons: File:Angie cupcake frosting test.jpg last night but it's currently awaiting review since the bot couldn't find the CC-BY-SA. I picked that one since it's the only CC licensed image of just her, and for the infobox it'll do just fine to identify the subject of the article. N419BH 13:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

REmmet1984‎‎

Hello Black Kite. Regarding this edit, Tnxman307 has blocked ZionistSufi (talk · contribs) indefinitely for evading as REmmet1984‎‎ (see here). I dont really care about which, if any, tag is used, but the user has effectively been confirmed as a sock. nableezy - 18:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • In which case the later account should be blocked as a sock of the first ... I presume that both are socks of a previous account ... you'd have to check with Tnxman307 which is the initial sock. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky page

Hello BlackKite Will you please kindly unblock the page Since despite many claims there's no interest in discussion of anything - nobody so far has replied to my posts on the discussion page. Will you please unblock it so I could make my edits, then discussion will move forward probablyDeepdish7 (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As an option, please restore page to last edit by me and block it again. I'm pretty sure a couple of those guys inviting me for discussion will show up then. Thx Deepdish7 (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi! Any feedback on Boris Berezovsky block release request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm posting complain on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on your actions on Berezovsky page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I posted another reply on Administrators' noticeboardDeepdish7 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Berezovsky Talk page

If you think it's okay to have that kind of garbage on an article Talk page, I'm not going to delete it again. I understand it's generally a touchy issue when deleting other editors' comments on a Talk page. But I still think it sets a bad precedent to allow an article Talk page to become a forum for requesting a block or a ban of another editor. It's not the same as just criticizing another editor in the midst of a discussion of content. It becomes almost only about the editor, not about the article.

I also think it sets a bad precedent for you to cease your involvement in the article just because someone wants you to - some sort of admin shopping. There's no reasoned basis for the request and, as you know, that's precisely what Deepdish7 has requested at ANI. I'm done venting.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's a major issue, to be honest. If editors want to vent at each other on a talkpage then at least it's better than entering into an edit war. And I've got no problem with editors criticising me, after all I wouldn't be an admin otherwise. I'm not planning on ceasing involvement on the article unless someone can construct a reasoned argument why I should - I think that is unlikely, but it is a good faith suggestion. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't have a problem with editors criticizing you, either - it is one part of being an admin. My original removals on the Talk page had to do with BigPensil saying that Deepdish7 should be banned, which I felt - and still do feel - was inappropriate for an article Talk page. The issue concerning you was prompted by your comments once you had restored the subsection. Anyway, I'm glad to hear you're not withdrawing simply because Deepdish7 says you should. As misguided as his request is, at least he had the sense to take it to the correct forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Adrianne Reynolds

Good call, but I wanted to remind you that WP:NOTNEWS has been deprecated, after discussion, to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, because many people used WP:NOTNEWS as a proxy for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Changing it gained me a barnstar, so I kinda have an edge on you :)--Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 00:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks - I hadn't noticed that - tweaked. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
While I disagree on the merits, I think this is an interesting case for discussion at DRV. Bold close. BusterD (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multilingual list of Indian kin terms

Hey, You'd closed this and userfied the main article to your space, but there were three more similar lists included in the nom (not visible at first sight, but they are there at the end of the nominating statement). All three have their AfD tags still and one of them says it's been copied to wikt already. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Copied the other two to my userspace, and deleted the one that had been transwikied. Thanks for pointing that out Black Kite (t) (c) 10:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Multilingual list of edible plants used in Indian cuisine

Would it be possible to get a copy? Many thanks in advance if you can. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just want a copy for my hard disk. It's a shame to see it go from Wikipedia. I hope it finds a home somewhere, sometime down the road. Thank you very much. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Userification request

Presuming no copyright or BLP concerns, could you move the deleted Murder of Adrianne Reynolds to my userspace? Thank You. Buddy431 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks like the DRV is going to restore it anyway, so it should be back shortly anyway. Probably best not to give you another copy or else we'll end up having to do a history merge. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that. Buddy431 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for preserving the multilingual list of edible plants article; I've saved it onto my system since I found it very useful. By the way; was this tranwiki'd to Wiktionary was someone suggested? Wikiraj121 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_37&oldid=1142894496"