User talk:Black Kite/Archive 52

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

Proposed deletion of BETT

The article BETT has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of BETT for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BETT is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BETT until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Using other people's talk page

Hey, BK, especially now that you've moved your talk page here, you should really register User:Black kite as a doppelganger account, to eliminate the (fairly remote, but still) possibility that someone else tries to make "Black kite" their username and either: a) gets really confused that their user and user talk pages appear to belong to someone else, or b) tries to impersonate you. It would also get rid of that kinda annoying "User account "Black kite" is not registered. If you wish to use "Black kite" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username." message that pops up any time someone tries to edit this page. You could even set up the email so that you still get email notifications, which is something you'll miss out on if people are just editing this page instead of your real talk page.

To be honest, though, you should probably just switch back; squatting on another username's talk page breaks most of the utility links available for other people, like the view contribs link, even if you do register the doppelganger. There's more likely than not a rule against it somewhere, too, if that's your thing.Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be Wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates that add categories, and redirects: "User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of another account controlled by the same user" (emphasis in original). I don't think this is an arbitrary rule, but rather something that's essential to preserve accountability and communication with other users. Please consider that you have already used your administrative tools since redirecting your user and user talk pages. When your use of the tools affects a user who is new or otherwise unfamiliar with the Mediawiki interface, it's important that they are not hindered from checking your contributions or admin log to get further information on the incident. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a technicality, though; since different capitalisations are not allowed (it's not possible to register them), the two differently capitalized versions are effectively owned by the same user. If I'd redirected it to a completely different name that I hadn't registered, then fair enough. Having said that, I'll change it back anyway, as I don't need the user page for the sig to work. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's a brilliant signature! Johnuniq (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. It is possible to register names with varying capitalization: see User:Writ keeper, as an example. It's only the capitalization of the first letter in the name that doesn't matter (since Mediawiki will always capitalize it regardless); the capitalization of subsequent letters is significant, and a change in that capitalization will constitute a separate user name. On the other hand, though, such usernames will typically be blocked by the anti-spoofing filter (I had to manually bypass it to create the above example). So, yeah, you're right that "Black kite" isn't going to be available to just anyone, but it is still technically possible. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Article creation protection ?

Hello — I noticed that you deleted the page Hangry after I marked it as CSD A11. The deletion history shows that this was the fifth time that “Hangry” has been deleted. Would it be appropriate to block that title (WP:SKYBLUELOCK) from being re-created?  Unician ∇  01:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Good idea, I've done that. Black Kite kite (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

" abusing other users (see their contribs)"

hello;

i see that you have closed my request for action, aftr only abt 24 hours, & when the discussion was clearly not concluded.

i'm not inclined to "fight it out" further, given the demonstrated uselessness of ani discussions.

i have put my complaints about this user "on the record" & that's about all i "realistically" hoped to accomplish.

HOWEVER; i do not "conceed" that your closure of the discussion, at this time & in this manner, for the reasons given, was appropriate & in accord with wp. i'm inclined to think that it was probably not.

& again, i am using this opportunity, here, to put my objections "on the record".

moving on...

in your close rationale you used the phrase "abusing other users (see their contribs)", & i am not clear how this is meant?

are you saying that showing a user's edit record, when filing a complaint about their activities, is abuse? o__0

if that was not your intention, then please clarify what you did mean?

if that was your intention, then please direct me to the relevant wp for this?

thank-you, either way

Lx 121 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

AN3

Thanks for closing, but it was a bit confusing. Stale yes, but also surely no violation? Stale often means there was a violation but a block now won't help. Given some people's behavior I imagine someone saying I only escaped a block as I stopped editing. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's why I put a note saying that the IP clearly doesn't grasp the point ... but I'll make it a bit clearer. Black Kite kite (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Funny 2 days, I got taken to ANI the day before being accused of using sleepers (by a new user who in fact might be a sock). Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that was funny. Black Kite kite (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and attacking user - closure.

Hi. Noticed that you closed the case on grounds that the user has not edited for 10 months. My question is:

  • What will be when the user comes back to resume editing?
  • If the user shows as blocked - It will be easier for other users to notice and to undo the attacking and disruptive edits.

Caseeart (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Or does it have to do with the format I used for reporting the user? (This is my first time reporting a user on ANI).Caseeart (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick jump in from a watcher. Incidents on ANI are only dealt with if they've occurred very recently. Less than 24hrs usually, 48hrs at a very long stretch. A week is already considered water under the bridge and 10 months is considered prehistoric especially if the editor being reported hasn't edited that whole time. Administrators will never preemptively block someone for transgressions that are so old especially with the lack of more recent evidence. Blocking is only ever used to prevent continuing damage to the encyclopedia. I recommend a read of WP:BLOCK for reference. Blackmane (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) As Blackmane says, ANI is only for issues that provide immediate protection for the project. If the editor comes back and continues the similar comments, then immediate protection will be required. Just like we close things on WP:AN/3RR as "stale" after a couple of days, ANI is even moreso the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Well explained. Thanks. (I just hope that I will be active on Wikipedia when this user comes back). Caseeart (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Liking your signature... Thanks, Matty.007 10:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for Chuvash people article's protection but can you revert vandalist user's last changes? Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look

Hi BK, could you please have a look here [1]?--FreemesM (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC) User:LucrativeOffer finally did not do what I haves asked him to do. He added only his sources which were deleted from freemesm. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.164.21 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

This is purely curiosity, no real necessity to it. Why is 31 hours a block time that seems fairly go-to on the edit warring page? I'm puzzled. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Because quite often when one applies a block of 24 hours, a user repeats the problematic edits as soon as they're unblocked because, being the same time of day, they're active; with 31 hours, the block often expires when they're not active, i.e. in the middle of the night. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary

I was looking at the instructions here for requesting lower protection levels and it says I need to ask the admin adding protection first. I have no COI/affiliation with Banc or any interest in making a positive page on them. I do have an interest in cleaning up the promotion, removing redundancy and trimming it down to quality sources. CorporateM (Talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I've knocked it down to semi again. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Cross reference of English and Indian names for plants

Dear Black Kite,

There used to be a version of a page you created that was a cross reference of English and Indian names for plants. This was very useful at my local Indian market, because it's almost impossible for a non-speaker to avoid buying duplicates, and also to find many items without assistance.

User:Black Kite/Multilingual list of edible plants used in Indian cuisine

At one point, while the page was no longer an article, it was stored in your account. Do you have an updated location? An alternate reference? Leptus Froggi (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheerleaders?

Can I see the page "User:Black Kite/Cheerleaders"? I just want to see it, that's all. 67.82.89.253 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rollback

Proposed: rollback to [3] to undo large number of changes by new editor CorporateM (talk · contribs). Reason: promotional editing. John Nagle (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Fine by me. I'm not going to edit it myself as I've previously used protection. Black Kite kite (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

3rr broken or not?

Because you had checked the report against this user on WP:AVI, I shall describe that it is certainly a new user.. He made his 3rd revert or 4th[4], at 13:54.. But he was also warned at 13:54.[5] What you think? OccultZone (Talk) 16:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I've got my eye on it. If he reverts again I will block. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Should I go to ANI?

See Talk:Banc De Binary just above your notice. Two very interesting edit histories of a sudden. I have an appointment coming up IRL. Can I start a thread on ANI and excuse myself and face the consequences? Or do you have a better idea? Okteriel (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • If you are concerned they are sockpuppets, then WP:SPI woukd be the correct forum; absent any evidence of anything else other than their edit history, I don't think you'll get anything from ANI, as you will probably be told "this is a content dispute". Black Kite kite (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's an idea, I suppose. What I mean is Smallbones is calling me a banned editor because of article interest, I denied it, Historian took the view from Smallbones, and both are deleting my talk or reverting me. I haven't even had time to look through the histories to see how many of my comments I need to restore; at least 3 or 4. Historian also seems to be canvassing (I hope I'm not). Can you maybe template them for me? Okteriel (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC) I'd like to hold the SPI to wait and see if further overlaps manifest. Thanks for the idea! But if you have a comment in the next few minutes, thanks for that, too. Okteriel (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I guess I used your name in vain. Sorry. Okteriel (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wigmore

You'll probably also want to purge some history from my talk page related to the ANI for Wigmore, Herefordshire. Some of it was copied there. If you could leave the last section where the editor requested a clarification, I'm intending to respond but I'm also supposed to be studying so I might not get to it for a few days. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - could you take care of one more revision? I should have cleaned up first, sorry about that. The current revision has all of the BLP issues scrubbed. Thanks again. Ivanvector (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wigmore School

Thank you for taking on this issue. I agree with your actions. I also question, though, whether "StopTheRot-Wigmore" is an acceptable username. Actually I am fairly convinced it is not, but neither you nor anyone else has far as I can see has raised the question, so I thought I'd post here for a reality check. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it's a bit WP:SOAPy, isn't it? Actually, since I've revdeleted all the user's edits, they could simply make a new account, would be easiest. Black Kite kite (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree, StopTheRot-Wigmore has now set up a new account SBNJ please remove old account and let me put my naivety and wiki-failings behind me. SBNJ (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks for doing that. Black Kite kite (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Additionally the domain has been removed and released for xfer to the school as the headmaster as now stepped down. I will actively seek to contribute positively to Wikipedia from now on. Thanks again for your help and advice. SBNJ (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(sardonically) How long until someone creates User:StopTheRot-ArbCom? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm surprised someone hasn't already. Black Kite kite (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • FTR I did submit the StopTheRot account to WP:UAA but the report was deleted after the account was indef'd. Ivanvector (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I am too lazy to check if User:WorstArbcomEVAR is taken already. Or if they're saving it for next year's arbcom, which btw, will be the WORST EVAR too. (Sorry for spoiling any possible surprise there.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

BDBIsrael behavioral review

Regards, Black Kite. Since you are on my list of administrators familiar with the Banc De Binary article, could you please review the behavioral concern expressed here to determine if my edits are in compliance with Wikipedia policies? BDBIsrael (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

filed, for what its worth

[6]--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Hmm, that's not an SPI, that's a fishing expedition. Black Kite kite (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Right you are. My understanding of that process was flawed.
On the other hand, in light of the substantial amount of disruption in the RS/N thread, is there anything short of an Arbcom case to resolve the sourcing issues?
Aside from the editor that deleted all of their comments from the thread (is that permissible?), leaving a lot of comments without context, there are other forms of obstruction (IDHT, soapboxing, etc) impeding the consensus building process. Here is one diff, for example, of an editor completely ignoring all preceding discussion of the relevant guideline and policy, and accusing me of making some sort of arbitrary assertion when exactly the opposite is the case. I don't seem to meet with much success at AN/I, and I don't want to waste any more time and effort there, either. One more diff is this comment on user conduct, which seems to be against the statement at the top of the page that, "This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct.".
I could list more diffs, but am not sure of the propriety of even discussing this here to begin with. If you have time to go through that thread, any suggestions would be welcome.
And if you can restore the edits deleted (shouldn't they have been struck through?), that would be helpful. Thanks.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course I (and everyone else) are not saying "this is definitely not a sock", we are saying there's no convincing evidence either way. Without that, the AN/I thread is simply a content dispute, and the SPI is pointless. I will have a look again at that thread, though. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I decided to try this approach [7], which may prove to be more productive, though that thread is still going strong.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean to burden you with this, but since you are somewhat familiar with the scenario, I'm going to ask you a couple more questions, about the RfC.
First, is the wording biased to a degree that makes it problematic? I've made minor adjustments, but could do more if necessary.
Second, two editors have tried to squelch the RfC, in what appears to me to be a disruptive manner here and here. The first editor has also accused me of canvassing at your talk page.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that not only was my edit not "disruptive" it addressed the precise issue at hand succinctly and accurately. I would prefer that my edits not be inaccurately categorized as being something they are not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you should have posted that here, because this is not the proper forum if you have a complaint about my conduct, but you compel me to make some response. For the record, you stated

This is an "RfC of the Absurd"... It is ill-framed and argumentative. The discussion at RS/N is clear... not a reason for this RfC

You were out of line trying to dismiss the RfC, and I consider that to be disruptive. Perhaps there would have been a better forum to attempt to do that, too, if you had a complaint you could substantiate.
I came here seeking advice, bringing up both the assertions about the wording of the RfC as well as the dismissive comments.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Scott Lively

It doesn't really matter whether "homophobia" is the person's primary claim of notability or not — the usage note on the category page specifies that individual people can never be added to it under any circumstances. If you'd like to try to change the established consensus to allow that in some cases, you're certainly more than welcome to propose a different standard for discussion. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc de Binary

Just wanted to let you know that I've asked for unprotection of Banc de Binary, as the reason for the full protection (edit-warring with BDB accounts and socks) is now gone because of the site-banning of BDB and permanent blocking of the most prominent BDB sock. I think unprotecting is in BDB's intersts as we can now address the article issues more promptly. I do think long-term semiprotection is a good idea, however. This is just FYI. I asked for unprotection on WP:RPP but, never having asked for unprotection before, it occurred to me that maybe I should have asked you instead. In any event, I believe protection expires in a few days as it is. Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Request

Can you have a word with STATicVapor ? They persist to editwar archive.is links back into articles. Werieth (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_52&oldid=1201139573"