User talk:Black Kite/Archive 82

Pro Wrestling Australia

Thank you for moving this back to draft. I was going to support Wang Wahine anyway but you moved back first before I had the chance. Just one thing - apparently a move back to the main space can be blocked without doing anything else. If so, can you please do this? Pidzz will move it back into the main space without a review first if this is not done (he has done so three times now). Addicted4517 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a reliable source

Akbaruddin_Owaisi : 1) I would like to understand is India Today an unreliable source ? [1] In this link, Owaisi claims that if Police is removed, Muslims can kill all Hindus of India! 2) Is business-standard an unreliable source, I see this site quoted on different websites ? [2] In this website Owaisi says India will never be a Hindu country! India is the only country with Hindu majority & he wishes to wipe of Hinduism from India too. Please tell me if these sources are not reliable ? In which case, I will quote for more resources.Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anindian2020 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• The India today article doesn't back up the opinion - stated in Wikipedia's voice - that you added, it's a purely factual piece (and the 15 Minutes speech is already covered in the article). Opinions don't belong in an article, especially in the lead. The YouTube video is of course not reliable. Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

On Ilhan Omar

Kite, facts are facts. When a fact is established as such, it -does not- require some authenticating consensus. I say again: my assertions are facts. As to calling Omar's reputation into question, that was not my intent, but if it does, then so what? Her reputation has already been examined closely, and as you can see, even ABC News found the whole business important enough to comment on. They're to the left as well, just like Wikipedia- and Wiki's left-ness I notice you do not deny.

Neutral statements of fact from people opposed to someone's agenda, as I am to Omar's (and Wiki's de facto agenda) are permitted, last I checked.

As to your bible of rules on here about everything, which seem to rival the Associated Press' as to scope and minute detail, you high-volume editors need to let ALL cited edits go through unless they're blatantly intended as opinion, hit material, or fiction. My contribution is factual and cited, regardless of my personal feelings. You can obfuscate the matter with consensus this and "read (some vague rule)" that, but facts are facts- this I repeat. I'm not buying your smokescreen, sir. I've read Wikipedia's rules on editing, how to phrase and discuss. You and they are legislating this site into a giant partisan screed, your combined acts being in violation of your own neutrality rules- which tell people to edit boldly. I did that. Also, Omar's article isn't the only one I've parsed and found to be this way.

If you're going to let the world edit articles here, you're unethical to change the world's view to your collective own. I submit you have no vested interest in Ilhan Omar, or you wouldn't be editing her page to start with. You thus have no reason to worry in any wise about an allegation that was made about Omar, and that itself is relevant to her ability to serve effectively (honesty and transparency on her part are necessary to being an effective US representative).

I have no such direct interest myself; I am not her constituent, nor am I related to her. Her policies do not substantially affect me in daily life. I am thus qualified to edit her page here, and may state previously-determined facts about her life, as well as interpretations about her prior circumstances. Find me a rule that says specifically that's not so, including in the BLP section. I'll wait.

It's also most distressing that you use the BLP rule basically to attack material you don't seem to like. That is not the intent of the rule. You're not going to agree with all of what you see on here. To cherry-pick what's published is improper, and antithetical to this site's supposed mission. With all due respect, sir, grow up! And if you're acting at the behest of higher-up editors, mods, or supervisors for Wikipedia, you can tell them those sentiments go quadruple for them. With all due respect, of course X-( I'm John, and I approved this message. Sometimes I wonder why I even try to help the holier-than-thous that inhabit this place. Out... Veryproicelandic (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• As far as editing goes, there are no "higher-up editors, mods, or supervisors for Wikipedia". There are administrators (of which I am one) but I did not revert your edit in an administrative capacity. The bigger problem is that if you believe you are righting great wrongs by railing against some imaginary Wikipedia agenda, then you will only ever end up self-validating your own views when those edits are disallowed because they do (or may) violate Wikipedia policy. Regardless of that, I have pointed out not that we can never include that information, but given that it is a BLP, a discussion is required. I note you have not started that discussion. By the way, for what it's worth, And you are right - I'm not even American and couldn't care less about US partisanship. I do, however, know how WP:BLP works, and it isn't "some vague rule", it's a core Wikipedia policy. Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Notarize

Hi @Black Kite: How can that be no consensus, when the references are so bad and the work was done to show. That should have been a delete. It hasn't even been closed properly. Have you looked at the whole argument??? scope_creep^Talk 09:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Scope creep: Don't forget that I can only close on the arguments laid out. If I start examining the quality of the sources and closing the AfD on my judgement of them, then that's automatically a supervote. Having said that, I was very much wavering between N/C and Delete here - I think both are valid closes - and if you want to take it to DRV, please ping me and I'll say that there as well. The closing error is down to the AfD closer script (it looks like the Level 2 title half way down the page broke it) so I'll fix that now. Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Well what is the point of the notability standards if the references don't get checked by the closer. It makes a complete mockery of notabilty. The references are the article per WP:V and WP:N and they are whole reason that articles are taken to Afd in the first place, they are absent or present. Its like a catch-22 situation, impossible to resolve. It would be bad if there was one or two references that supported, but there wasn't even one. scope_creep^Talk 13:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Indeed, but there's a very big difference between there being no sources at all and people saying ITSNOTABLE (those can be discarded), and there being sources but people disagreeing about whether they're sufficient. For that reason I always do look at the article, and there are sources there (which I also looked at). Are they good enough? is the issue. My opinion? The sources are weak. Can I justify closing this as Delete based on that? That's far more difficult. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've created an entry at DRV, although it has not entered it correctly. scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for George Blake

On 27 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article George Blake, 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. Stephen 11:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey just a quick post to say thanks for protecting the page on the British Rail Class 332. Maurice Oly (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Creating Miss Grand International as a redirect

Hi. You previously salted Miss Grand International following repeated re-creation attempts. I've created an overview article covering the franchise (which is quite clearly notable) at Miss Grand, which, as a parent topic, should probably be a redirect target. Please consider creating the page as a redirect. (Though I also believe the Miss Grand International competition itself has achieved a level of notoriety that satisfies the notability guideline, the propensity of the subject to attract low-quality edits may also be a consideration, so I'm not asking for unprotection yet.) --Paul_012 (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Would WP:RPP be a better place to make this request? (I know you're not latest admin to change the page's protection level, but the only one still active, which is why I asked here.) --Paul_012 (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've recreated it as a protected redirect. I'm not convinced that Nawat Itsaragrisil is notable, though ... Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd say Plenty enough Thai sources cover Nawat personally to satisfy the GNG, though the article does need improvement. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This image of Sukirti

Hi i wanted to ask you some help or something once again. Is this image allowed to be on Wikipedia. Doesn’t it violate the wikipedia:Copyrights rules or something as it comes from a website. TracyBeker0910 (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

[3] by User:Icyblue001 TracyBeker0910 (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, it's OK because Bollywood Hungama license their images with one that is compatible with Wikipedia. The uploader hasn't tagged it correctly, however. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I have strong feeling that it not a suitable one because apparently you can’t get images from a actual news picture as that editor might of got that photo from somewhere else. It has to be from an actual photo like [4]. Because another user uploaded a photo from the same news for Pavitra Punia and it got deleted. [5] and it was from this source [6] TracyBeker0910 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

TracyBeker0910, I believe you are correct about that. The image also doesn't have the right BH tag that triggers the review. I'm going to tag it as a copyright violation, noting that BH has very specific requirements on what images it allows the CC-BY-SA license. I look for the source of the image to have parties-and-events in the url, and have a BH watermark, neither of which is here. This appears to be specifically for the article. Ravensfire (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

Stephen Borthwick

Hello, Black Kite. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Borthwick (schoolmaster), an AfD consensus is not a simple vote, how many users are for, and how many against. You will have seen my view that the deletionists had feeble arguments in terms of policy, and it seemed they had stopped trying to defend them. The AfD was relisted, and after that there was only one new contributor, who “leaned” keep. Closing it as you did seems to me to defeat the point of the relisting, and a closing admin needs to assess the policy discussion. Would you please review the AfD and say what is your own assessment of compliance with the GNG here? Moonraker (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• I always read the articles very carefully in non-obvious closes, in case some of the comments do not reflect the content. Here, I did not see any comment that I was minded to discard. Therefore, with four deletes vs. a Keep and a leaning Keep, I believed there was a consensus. Please let me know if you'd like the article posted to Draft space if you wish to improve it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Black Kite. As I see it, some of the Delete comments had no proper basis and should have been discarded. Examples are the reliance on Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which is simply not relevant here, and the claims that there are no “in depth” sources (there are) and indeed that the GNG requires “in depth” sources (it doesn’t). So I do think this ought to go to a deletion review. Would it need to be moved to draft space for that to go ahead? In the mean time, it would be helpful if you could give your own view on compliance with the GNG. Moonraker (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My view on GNG is compliant with it, i.e. that coverage needs to be significant (sustained and in-depth) and secondary. If you send it to deletion review let me know and I'll restore it for the DRV. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t understand that answer, Black Kite. I was asking about whether you saw any problem with the sources for this article complying with the GNG. That does not define "significant" as "sustained and in-depth", vague terms nowhere defined. It does say "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And WP:Basic adds "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Your thoughts on the policy questions in the AfD would be very welcome, especially why you think none of the Delete comments should have been discarded. Moonraker (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I answered your question. I am certainly not going to re-litigate the close of the AfD here - that is the purpose of DRV. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Schar

Is there any particular reason all those changes to Dwight Schar's page were reverted?

• You may want to read WP:BLP. Calling someone "corrupt" in a section title and inserting large amounts of negative material which either didn't have sources or had unreliable sources is certainly going to violate it. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

Hi BK and thanks for your input here. I tried my best to reason with the other editor but he/she simply ignored requests to discuss the issue on the DW talk page as it had been previously discussed. I find it ironic that the other editor is NOW choosing to discuss the matter over there. I believe if that had happened in the beginning, that could have been the end of it. Have a good day.   Aloha27  talk  14:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

use of Collapse template

I just saw you use {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} and I am a believer. Added to my list of favorite things. JaredHWood💬 16:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Read this:

Thanks for adding protection on the page Horrid Henry (TV series), I'm proud of myself! Thank you! :)

Thanks! -TVFan88 talk 4:20PM EST

Nicole738

I think there are more sockpuppets:

• User talk:85.1.112.11
• User talk:2A02:1205:501B:C190:E1A2:210E:75FB:3D9
• User:Eden B-T

Thanks for your help. I think they used other IP addresses, but I hope this will do the trick. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I will keep an eye on these. It's probably not worth blocking IP addresses unless they appear to be static. I did look at Eden B-T but that account does appear to edit other articles as well - I think we'd need a CU for that one as it's not as obvious as the others. Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2018-Mogwai-Album-Artwork.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2018-Mogwai-Album-Artwork.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for clearing out a lot of those hoax footy ones I found in Stale userspace drafts. I wasn't expecting it to be that many! Keep up the great work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Network schedule

I am curious, I was just looking over the AfD after you closed it and there seems to be a big chunk of peoples comments and stuff multiple copied in that AfD, doesn't seem right. And that AnotherEditor144 really trolled it up, whom I reported him in WP:ANI. Govvy (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I have no idea what they were doing there, I presume they were trying to copy part of their comment across and just ended up duplicating the whole thing. Twice. Black Kite (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Doug Mountjoy

On 16 February 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Doug Mountjoy, 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 23:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I don't know what to do about the repeated disruptive editing on Disha Ravi's article, and I am hoping you can help. Thank you very much. Beccaynr (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

While I was writing this, you were handling it, so thank you! Beccaynr (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beccaynr I will deal with it more permanently if it continues. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How TimesNow & Times of India are not reliable source. There are one of the biggest news providing channel in India. Seems like you guys are leftist don't want to add other side of the story. Grow up guys. All edit I did was truth. Just go to tweeter and check what is treding 2 days ago in India. Just check Toolkit and you will find mentions of Disrupt India's identity as 'Yoga and Chai'. Look at toolkit and find mentions of all Khalistan Separatists. Seems like Left has hijacked the wikipedia and there is no way person can show other side of the story or add a centered view. User_talk:anghanravi123 — Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

For Times of India, see the previous community discussion here. Times Now has the same problem (and indeed is worse). Unfortunately many Indian news sources - not just ones that support the government - are regarded as unreliable for sourcing political issues by Wikipedia, though they may often be used to source less contentious topics. It is always best to find neutral sources (which often means using ones from outside the country). Black Kite (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks for helping me and making contributions to me on Wikipedia! The complete thanks list is here. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 08:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access

78.190.165.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can talk page access be revoked on rangeblocked IPs? – ².O.^Boxing 14:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Squared.Circle.Boxing Yes, although it's tricky because if you block the whole range then you prevent an innocent editor caught in the rangeblock from requesting unblock. I have nuked the single one that was currently being childish. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

For pointing out that portals isn’t a great precedent. If I had commented on it, it also wouldn’t have been pretty. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni You should have seen the version I decided not to post. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a similar one written that I thought better of, I assure you. I think most people know my thoughts on desysoping someone for calling demonstrable falsehoods lies, so no need to repeat them. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

username

Is it just me or does that username sound like "David crapping shit"? Ref Disha talk page Vikram 16:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Quite appropriate then! Yeah, I'm not sure how I hadn't noticed that ... let's see if it posts again (most of them don't). Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

AFDs

Hi there. Daniel suggested I approach you and Sandstein about this issue. Background. I can give more info/post more links to current afds etc. if it's something you'd be willing to advise on. Thank you. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• yes, could you link the problems please? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

* Hi, I realize I should have been clearer. An editor previously nominated two of my articles (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_D'Arcy and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annette_McCarthy), both of which were closed as Keep. I didn't mind those noms but the editor then started making weird and untrue accusations about me closing AFD discussions on another user's talk page. I told admin User:Daniel about this and said I was willing to let it drop but was worried they might nominate further articles I created to retaliate. And they did. Not one but TWO more articles within less than three minutes of each other (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Davenport (actor) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Rondell) nominated by the SAME user. I understand articles may get nominated from time to time, but I feel more is going on here based on this user's previous actions and comments. I'm concerned that they can't be impartial when reviewing my pages. Can those discussions be closed and brought back to afd by someone else if they feel it's necessary or do they have to run their course now? Daniel said he personally thinks it's an issue and another editor even voted on one of them agreeing that they also think the nomination is suspicious. Could the editor be told to leave reviewing my articles for another page reviewer in future? Can I take this further if it continues or can anything more be done? Thank you. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lee Clark

You are a right idiot Key board warrior Scum Hazelhouse1988 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Aw thanks mate, nice of you to drop by. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)