User talk:Black Kite/Archive 94

2014 Isla Vista Killings

Can I ask what is wrong with the edits I did? A lot of the sources were unreliable, a lot of information was missing and outdated, and it just needed to be updated. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how Rodger can't be notable. He is the one who shot the incel community into the mainstream and has made people inspired to do attacks like his almost ten years later. [1] [2] [3] [4] There are multiple articles talking about his mental health [5] [6] [7] [8] and Rodger's rampage also inspired and made women talk about sexism and misogyny and stared the hashtag #YesAllWomen. [9] [10] [11] [12]. He also caused the hashtag #NotAllMen, where men said they didn't have the same viewpoints like Rodger and wouldn't murder women because of it. [13] [14] [15] [16]. They also looked into his online life and how he was racist, hated women and talked bad about them, and was already looking to murder these poor college students [17] [18][19]. His rampage also brought forward more calls for gun control and inspired multiple laws that are now enacted [20] [21][22] [23]. Also talked about how mental health sources needed to be updated as well [24] [25] [26]. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• You might want to review the previous discussions at the various talk pages, and also WP:BIO1E. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand about needing a discussion for making an article on Elliot Rodger, but why do I need a discussion when updating the article by adding reliable sources and information that was missing on the 2014 Isla Vista killings article? A lot of the sources like IMBD on the article are unreliable and the article is messy. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because there were previous discussions that suggested it didn't need a separate article (indeed, the redirect was protected at one point because people kept reinstating it). If you don't have a discussion about it, people are going to keep on redirecting it because that was the status quo. Notability isn't an issue here - it's merely where the information on Rodger should be. Black Kite (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that. I started a discussion and will see where it heads. I was just asking about the 2014 Isla Vista killings. I wanted to update the information and remove unreliable sources, but you said that also needed a discussion. I was just wondering why I needed to talk with editors about updating the article.Shoot for the Stars (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  If there are unreliable sources in the article it is fine to remove them (well, replace them) just make sure your edit summary is clear. Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I tried to but you reverted all my edits and said in the edit summary. “Hang on , we need a discussion about this. The article has been stable for some time.” So I’m just asking you why I need a discussion to make the article better? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Does this violate a policy/guideline or am I over reacting?

Hello, I ran across the user page of Yfyyejgjwguj a few days ago and noticed a few things that seemed like they may not be allowed on a users page but didn't want to rush to one of the noticeboards without confirmation.

The user page is mainly a link repository, and further down is mostly gore and porn links. While I could care less what people look at on their own it doesn't seem like it should be linked on a user page. Is this a WP:UPNOT issue, or are user pages for whatever a user wishes to keep on them and granted more freedom?

I appreciate any help or advice you could give, and thank you in advance.

Awshort (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Awshort Yeah, that's not acceptable (and some of the stuff is frankly blockable). I've deleted every remotely dubious link on the userpage, revision deleted everything, and warned the user. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is the user in question not a sock of the currently indefinitely blocked User:Vwqvj qwhiu? Their user pages seem to be identical, and describes pages created by User:Vwqvj qwhiu as creater by User:Yfyyejgjwguj. 131.111.5.158 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  User now appears to have been blocked by Jpgordon. Just wondering if there was a reason you ignored my query Black Kite? Was genuinely just trying to be helpful! 131.111.5.160 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

2014 Isla Vista Killings discussion

I have tried creating an WP:RfC and that was reverted. I also tried getting a WP:third opinion but that was also reverted. What can I do to change to update the article? A lot of the information is outdated and needs some major updating. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

request for double-check

I promise I'm not trying to rope you into a discussion I'm having, but I want to ask if you'd evaluate my own arguments and ensure I'm presenting myself accurately.

At this AN/I now-archive, I was taken to task by an IP editor for writing the article suicide of Louis Conradt (from scratch) and then redirecting Louis Conradt (what I characterized as a WP:BIO1E). You said that I'd done nothing wrong because 90% of that biography was about the [event] (there are only a couple of sentences about his life before that, and none of those provided any real notability per BIO). I am sure that if that article had been only that section and nominated for deletion, it would have been deleted. Thus, his notability lies purely in the [event], and that is what we now have. I recently wrote the article Press Your Luck scandal from scratch and redirected the article Michael Larson thereto. I'm receiving the very same pushback from another single editor, though not an IP and with much more experience on the project.

Would you mind looking at Michael Larson (the BIO1E, where my redirection was undone, but is otherwise unchanged), Press Your Luck scandal, and the discussion at Talk:Press Your Luck scandal#Separate articles? (a) Am I correct in making the same arguments there that you did back in Jan 2023, and (b) if so, am I articulating myself and those rationales properly? Again, I'm not asking you to 'slide up in there and put your thing down' (to quote fine art); I'm watching here if you wouldn't mind just auditing me and my actions/words. If you do mind, that's completely fair—it's a big ask, but I'll still watch here for you to say 'no', if you don't mind. Thanks for your time and gracious patience — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

It had dragged out, and seemed to be some sort of dragged out nightmare, thanks for your action. JarrahTree 12:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)