User talk:Black Kite/Archive 68

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

Highly

Can you put Newstead Wood School on your watchlist. There has been correspondence on my talk page too. Cheers--ClemRutter (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Whoops

At 15:12, 30 October 2017 I inadvertently made an edit without logging in at Calculus of variations. Could you remove my IP address from the history and replace it with my username? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  •  Done. I can't replace it with your username, I can only remove it from the history. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. Thank you! --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding link to WP:ITN/C on T:ITN

Hi Black Kite,

I'm reaching out to you regarding a template change suggested at WT:ITN because you're 1) uninvolved and 2) a regular admin who edits the ITN template. There seems to be consensus for a trial (or maybe there isn't). If you have a few minutes, could you please take a look? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Adding_link_to_WP:ITN.2FC_on_T:ITN

Thanks, --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Josh0108

Hi, I actually started a discussion on the 2018 Winter Olympics page [1]. However the user continues to 'disrupt' Wikipedia with the addition of tables of sponsors without discussion. I believe there is WP:COMPENTENCE here as you can see towards the end of my talk page [2]. There also seems to be civility issues with the user as seen on their talk page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

WyndingHeadland

I note your decision on this matter - and thank you for looking at this. I don't know if you are aware that several users had some discussion on the talk page of the admin who applied at least one of the blocks. It seems that, speaking just for myself, lack of knowledge of how these situations are dealt with possibly put bits of the overall discussion in the wrong place.

I am not suggesting for one moment that the matter needs re-opening - however it seems fair to mention to you that we do question the ability of the problem user to work with others. However, hopefully, this is the last of the matter, but if there are continued problems someone presumably needs to raise a new ANI referenced back to the previous ones? Am I right in this? If there is a re-run of all this, I would like to be able to get everything right.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  • If there are future issues which are the same as the ones referenced in the close, then (as the close says) it will be likely that sanctions wil be applied without returning to ANI. I have watchlisted the relevant articles. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Since you have Highland Clearances on your watchlist, you will have seen the edit summary on [[3]]. It is a reinstatement of a reversion[[4]] that I made, with what I hope was a clear explanation in the edit summary. I have little understanding of what WyndingHeadland's edit summary is meant to mean. There is nothing on the talk page to clarify it.
I have just re-read the chapter that provides the reference for the first two sentences of this paragraph. There is none of the (?confusing and irrelevant?) mention of de jure and de facto. The reference is the book that just about any serious editor on the subject would have access to - but I don't believe WyndingHeadland has ever read it - or if they have, they have taken it to confirm all their beliefs and misunderstandings (which is something we can demonstrate they do with Wikipedia editing rules and guidance). I have the reference on Kindle as well as a hard copy - so I have searched for "de jure" and "de facto" - they do not appear anywhere in the book. Finally, and I know this is a content issue, the bit about "...security of the clan system was repealed by law" seems to be complete nonsense.
Clearly, WyndingHeadland might have a different source available - but we are really none the wiser as to what it is. Whatever the situation, I do not think their edit increases the readability of the article.
In terms of assessing whether we have continuing problems, I suppose it may be a bit early to decide - but based on my recent exposure to this situation, this latest edit does not leave me feeling optimistic.
Stop press - I've just checked the talk page on Scots Gaels......
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI EWN

wp:EWN#User:Oldstone James reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: ) Jim1138 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Payette talkpage

Hi Black Kite. FYI, Forum/Polemic contents comparing edits to those of Pravda and talking about scrubbing and whitewashing are being restored by edit-warring. Best regards. Dr. K. 04:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

List of natural disasters in the British Isles

Can you correct the typo in the talk page title as well? It still seems to have the mis-spelling. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Done, that's weird, I'm sure it used to fix the talkpage as well. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Daniel C. Boyer - block evasion

Back in July, you blocked Daniel C. Boyer after he was community-banned from Wikipedia. Boyer is back, inserting his name into List of Harvard University non-graduate alumni, utilizing his preferred method, the use of IP editors - in this case 172.58.184.161 and 172.58.217.194. They've done it another article as well (restored Boyer's name to the contents), but I'm darned if I can remember which one. In any case, a short block of these two IPs would seem to be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Olivier_Hammam

Not sure if you're aware but the user is having extensive conversations completely in french on their talk page that don't seem to be unblock requests. You might want to look in on it. --Tarage (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

On Becoming Baby Wise

Did you mean to set full protection on this article indefinitely? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  • At the time, yes, because of the long time-frame over which the article had been persistently attacked. However, now that we have EC protection, I've dropped it down to that instead. Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock (again)

Hi Black Kite. Thank you for your previous help with an IP adding unsourced content. However, along with the 117. range, they're also jumping to a 49.34 range and continuing with adding unsourced additions and generally non-helpful edits. I spent most of yesterday chasing around behind them, clearing their mess up, much to my frustration. Apart from the obvious block evaision issue, I would be very grateful if you could do the same with this range, even if it's for only for a couple of weeks. Any questions, please drop me a note or ping me back here. Thanks in advance. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This one's a bit more tricky. There are only cricket-related edits going back to 20 November, but there are a number of "normal" edits before that. I'll block for a week and see what happens. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you - much appreicated. I'll keep a log of the range if/when it comes back, and any problems, I'll go through the normal process. Thanks once again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

OPNSense Article and GNG

Re:List of Router & Firewall Distributions Firewall Distros As certain users remove content and fight for the removal of articles, when one user seems to have a disproportionate amount of influence over the content and continues to fight, having said article is an uphill battle. An OPNSense article has been created and removed more than once. References and reviews by top sites are being dismissed and users accused of being SPA, Socks, Vandals, and more. The WP:GNG states 2 very important points that you're clearly not considering in your position and contrary to it. You mention the WP:GNG guidelines, but the last sentence in the those guidelines state "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.", but attempts to discuss it in this article are being met with the content requirements for an individual article, which I believe we've established on the Draft:OPNSense page. Please apply the guidelines consistently, that including OPNSense on this page isn't required to meet the same notability guidelines as a standalone article. If you believe that there is a rubric that I am missing, let me know. I simply need to know the standards being applied and I'd like to ensure that they're applied equally here. Thanks. ComputerRick (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite, ComputerRick has agreed on their talk page to step back from this for a while. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Thank you for closure on OPNsense matter here. If I see this happening again, do I report it to noticeboard or just let you know here on your talk page? I'm glad this is gaining traction but sadly not before OPNSense managed to cause damage to me trough their sock or meat puppet account, ComputerRick who has reported me for COI. See result of that here. So the damage has been done by OPNsense project anyway. Thanks for your help!--Mr.hmm (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite, just wanted to let you know that I am also trying to work with Mr.hmm to get them to step away from this while the community works it out. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Christine Keeler

On 6 December 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Christine Keeler, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversion

Could you help me understand why you don't see an issue with that comment? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ashique Kuruniyan

Hey, I noticed that you may have SALT'ed the page for the guy above. Just want to inform you that he has recently made his professional debut as a footballer in a fully professional league and now passes WP:NFOOTY. If you could remove the SALT then that would be amazing. No need to restore an old revision as I would like to create the article from scratch. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A comment on your comment

Thanks for your intervention in the ANI case. I don't want to go through the details, but please see this comment and see that the disputed section is really much more cited now. I really don't think the other party was great (how you described it) by persistently reverting the header and inline tags. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 07:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that I was not active amid the ANI case progress, so please let me tell you this here; As you see, I have had no more such interactions with Icewhiz since the admin's warning to him, though I was not the one whom was warned! Said that, I don't welcome any bans on my part. This is he, who just needs to keep out. --Mhhossein talk 13:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Heinz Wolff

On 17 December 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Heinz Wolff, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD debate

I support an AfD debate for the Environmental racism in Europe article. I will be inactive on Wikipedia for an extended period of time, and will not be a participant in an AfD debate should one take place. Please note that I will not be reading or responding to any further discussions as of today, including this message. Thank you. Sturgeontransformer (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sarcastic

Felt the need to clarify this, since thanking someone for doing what I asked them not to do probably gives the wrong impression. I was really very sick of that mess and am glad it's over, even if it didn't end exactly the way I would have liked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Black Kite: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

The standings are provisional, that is clear, so no crystal — Preceding unsigned comment added by PreciesJJ (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Black Kite, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Nat965 (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

11 years ago.

Happy New Year, Black Kite!

Happy New Year!

Black Kite,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

DYK issues

I am certain that I have screwed up the DYK process.
After creating the article for the band, The Dead South, I thought a DYK might be a nifty way to bring more eyes to the article (for expansion, etc.). I created a DYK [Template:Did you know nominations/The Dead South here], but I don't see it on the nomination page, and am worried that I have created s clusterf*ck of it. Could I trouble you for assistance on fixing it? I have no idea where I went wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(tps) I see it on the nomination page, with a review, all seems fine. You can always check "What links here" (left, under tools) if you want to find links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine (Angel)

Your closing comment was incorrect, and I would appreciate it if you'd amend it. It's par for the course that other commenting editors don't read what I say, but the closing admin is actually kinda responsible for reading the statements, especially when I point out 1) that the GNG is met and 2) how to find links to articles in Google Scholar that discuss all of the characters. One can easily skim past the additional {{Find sources AFD}} when looking solely for links to sources, not noting that those links themselves have everything to demonstrate notability.

Instead, it is entirely reasonable to conclude is that no one cared enough to add sources during the AfD, even though plenty were raised. I resemble that remark; I only have a finite amount of time to spend on Wikipedia, and most of my efforts this week are getting Armin T. Wegner to GA, something far less entertaining but more important.

Closes like this do little to inspire knowledgeable editors to even comment: those who argued for redirection clearly looked primarily at the current state of the articles, while I never opened any of them: Notability has nothing to do with article content. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  • It's certainly not a criticism, but you would think that at least someone would find or mention a source, even if they didn't put it in. The real problem however is that before closing, I looked at those links for Google Scholar - and there was practically nothing there. Seriously - look at them again - this is the scholar link you gave for Eve, there's simply not a single thing there about that character. The only one that had even some decent hits was Lilah Morgan, and even then most of them were passing mentions in plot summaries (I suspect that particular article could be brought to a decent state, but that certainly wasn't it). Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark Hughes

Hello Black Kite, could you please semi-protect Mark Hughes. He's just been sacked from his club and there's a lot of IP vandalism occurring. JMHamo (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. JMHamo (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Peter Preston

On 10 January 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Peter Preston, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

AE

"...like a bloody cuckoo clock" Still laughing at that. --NeilN talk to me 21:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Ok you had deleted my Mirraw page on 30th December However pls help me out with one thing- Is there any place where I can see the Mirraw wiki page as it was before it got deleted? I need to create it again, this time without any copyright violations ofcourse, but if I could find the old page, it would help me a lot of work and I would know where I went wrong. Thanks. User:Subho2017 —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

In December 2016 you closed the discussion regarding the 'far right' description of Breitbart. I disagree with the 'Keep' closure you performed and I wanted to discuss it with you.

Here are some issues I believe need to be addressed:

  • (1) No clear consensus for 'Keep' (58%) with some strong arguments against.
  • (2) A high number of sources stating far right were op-eds - not neutral
  • (3) Some of the listed sources, such as the BBC source labelled Breitbart 'Right Wing', but never 'Far Right'
  • (4) The use of 'Far Right' is used very prominently (first line) without context, such as 'John Doe of the New York Times described Breitbart as Far Right.' This indicates it is an unquestionable fact (it isn't)
  • (5) The fact that the term gets removed so often demonstrates a clear lack of consensus on the issue.
  • (6) Far Right is associated with white nationalism, Nazism, and fascism

Can we discuss why you believe there was clear enough consensus? Thanks, KU2018 (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • We aren't going to re-hash a discussion that happened over a year ago, no - that would be ridiculous. Also, there have been numerous discussions on the same subject since (see the talk page archives). If you wish to re-open the discussion to see if consensus has changed since 2016, then obviously you are free to open a new RfC on the subject. As a brief reply though - I would point out that on the Oppose side there were a number of "dubious" votes - 2 IPs and an account that had never edited anywhere else, a sockpuppet that was then blocked, and a couple of other account that were pretty much single-purpose. The consensus looks a lot more easy to judge when you take that into account. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A query from Subho2017

I was contacted by an editor, Subho2017, who was looking for a copy of a deleted article. I declined, because I do not restore articles when there are copyright issues, but I didn't know whether the entire contents were a copyright problem or only a portion, so I instructed them to check with you, the deleting admin. They did, but you removed their query yesterday without a response. They failed to create a section heading, so perhaps you missed that it was a separate query from the one above, but could you respond? They are asking again at OTRS.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Ah, yeah, sorry I did miss that. No, at least half of it is a copyvio, so it can't be restored (it steals whole sections of this). Worse, it's an obvious advert (G11). It's one of those examples where it'd be better to write the whole thing again (the company is probably notable, and a quick Google finds quite a few sources - it's just a question of writing it properly). Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

James O'Toole

I see you put a note on User:Philafrenzy about James O'Toole (tax lawyer). I put a prod on Vern Miyagi who is an obscure person. Philafrenzy removed it noting in the edit summary that he's a high ranking Army officer. Upon review of notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide it seems like Miyagi was only a lesser ranked major general not a higher ranked general.

I am not sure what should be done, AFD or nothing. I will think about it for a few days. If I do an AFD, I will have to study it because I don't know how to do it. Your comments or advice are always welcomed but not required. New2018Year (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_68&oldid=1090488193"