User talk:Black Kite/Archive 18

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

IP block

One of your previous blocks/unblocks is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sceptre ban evasion. May be time to reinstate. - auburnpilot talk 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Die Another Day

Hi sorry for the delay Im having serious computer trouble. The actions by PD Thor happens to be a case of sour grapes. He attempted to delete the List of allies in Die Another Day a while back and has now turned to the henchmen. As for the images I don;'t believe removal of ALL of the images is acceptable. Zao and Miranda Frost images should be kept as they are main characters who would have had seperate articles if it wasn't for the decision to merge them all. I saw the inappropriate addition of the tags, the wrong tags which I attempted to replace with more valid ones e.g expand out of universe info etc as destructive behaviour and saw no abuse of tools or how I was violating against something I believed was the wrong course of action. The proposal to merge it into the main article equally is not a valid one as there is too much information and other commentary on the chaarcters in an out of unvierse view that could be added to justify its existance. Note I am having major computer trouble and am lucky to get on here the last few days so haven't had the time to speak to the remover of the images as I;d have liked to personally. Hpwever in my absence, his tell tale actions of reporting it to ANI and the manner in which the entire article up for deletion to prove a point by whoever illustrates very childish behaviour indeed The Bald One White cat 13:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I get frustrated with supposed "policies" is because I see two or three copyrighted images of the same character in articles like Homer Simpson and countless other cartoon character articles yet single low-res images are not permitted to identify the character once in articles on film characters which have been merged for a reason. I find it double standards that there is never any consistency in what can be used and this is how image conflicts result in that it is never clear what or what cannot be used. The Bald One White cat 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day. I think the image of Zao complies with guidlines particularly as his image is discussed in the text. OK? I have a feeling that the image remover will be watching this page and try to revert even that The Bald One White cat 14:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Jerry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Untrammelled's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

linking dates

Thank you so. I had always thought the policy was the opposite. → Nitya Dharma / ? 12:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Nevard

Did you intentionally close this discussion contrary to my relist, or did you just not see the relist? It is customary when taking an intentional action that is contrary to another administrator's action, to inform the administrator and explain the reason for it. If it was just an oversight, are you reading AfD's carefully enough before closing them? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Darrell Jobman

I created this document word by word. I did not copy and paste anything. Why delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullerba (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Challenge

Here you go BK, as I suspect you see a fair few pages in your wiki-travels and I know you have a bee in yer bonnet about cruft. In efforts to counteract systemic bias with sticks rather than carrots (and seeing what non-obscure stubs remain out there), i have listed a minicompetition of sorts here, so I'd be intrigued what comes up. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Jerry's closure of an article about an open source OS

In the above section, you said "I know this is archived, but can I just point out - 189,000 Google hits? No just 283. Just say no to Google's first page totals, kids!" You are incorrect here: the 189.000 hits is the actual total number, the 283 is the number of distinct hits in the first 1,000 results. I assure you that there are more than 436 distinct webpages with the word "wikipedia" in them ;-)[1]. Fram (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nokia

I just saw you cited the 2nd half of my "Reviews are the exact sort of sources best suited to show notability for products . Non notable products do not get reviewed." at AN/I--I wish you had let me know so I could comment. As you can see from my only sporadic appearances there, I don't watch that page all that often--and when I do I tend to see only the bottom stuff--I suppose I should do a Find for my name each time I get there :) I think mine a perfectly correct statement as far as it goes--if there are no reviews for a consumer product, its not likely to be notable. And the first half is true also. Yes, of course it depends on the extent & source of the review--I did not make an extended argument because it seemed headed for an clear keep and I don't want to extend discussions without need just to present my own views. . If I had, I would have discussed the issue of whether the review sites were sufficiently RSs for these phone reviews--a matter about which there can indeed be different interpretations. What to do with the 100s of phone models is a open question to me, & I've voted merge on some. -- I am not adverse to a merge by product lines as a default general rule. DGG (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User_contributions_for_203.164.248.178/25

Hey Black Kite. I'd just like to thank you for helping out with that. I was a little worried for a second ;o ~ Troy (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Buspar

Thank you so much for looking at this! Now that you've concluded that "User:Buspar and User:Xuanwu are very probably the same user," what happens next? This means that Buspar has been writing an article about himself and voting about an article about himself, which ought to be a no-no here. Did you also look at his editing from those different IP addresses? There he's using multiple accounts to try to bully his way to winning an argument with a fake show of numbers. See [2] "I also agree with the OP's opinions. So that's 3 to 1 against. I'll let Buspar deal with this guy's problems. 130.49.157.75" And did you also look at the GarryKosmos account? That's also the same person, which means he's casting multiple votes on the same issue. Again, thanks so much for looking into this. I was really worried that he was going to get away with all this abuse by sock puppets. Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So...

You'd rather tag the article than discuss the issue on the talk page and reduce the number of images? I think we both would prefer the latter; I don't think it's as clear as you say that there are too many, that's why I want to discuss it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some IPs edit warring, removing/moving AfD notices, etcs.

Hi. I've notice some strange behavior by a couple IPs today, and looking at the histories of the articles involved, I think an admin should look into it / keep an eye on it. As you know, I sometimes come off looking bad when I try to fix things :-(

From the identical edits, these would seem to be the same individual (using proxies?) I've warned them both, but don't see how effective that will be if they keep changing IPs. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable approach, though I note that the latter has more sources. Seems like they should have separate AfDs to me... Wednesday Next (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's see what happens. If there is consensus to have separate AfDs, they can always be split. Black Kite 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
See this earlier version. The IP is vandalizing it, then adding the AfD, not just adding the AfD to the existing article, Wednesday Next (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

New Aeon EQ

I listed it with the other one, which seemed the obvious choice to me, but User:Wednesday Next asked me nicely so I listed it separately. Thought I'd let you know. Here is the debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Aeon English Qabala. Sticky Parkin 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Redspruce

You blocked user Redspruce for a week, he is back and being just as insulting, and edit warring, for which he was blocked three times previously for the set of articles he is again deleting information from. Take a peek at his talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Explaining the whole problem to a new person would take way too much time. I have already been through at least three ANIs with him, and wasted a month when he brought up an issue before ArbCom about me and "quotes in footnotes". I wasted a full month, and the end was that ArbCom ignored the issue, and used the issue to rule on something completely different on living people and if they want information removed. I don't think anyone even read anything I wrote. It was like accepting Brown v. Board of Ed and ruling on Roe v. Wade. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The work involved will exceed his block time. I am the one then that gets punished for his misdeeds. Before your one week, he was just getting blocked for a few hours for each time he was rude or edit warred. The first thing he did when he was unblocked was just to go and reverse all my additions to articles. The punishment has no teeth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Danish copyright law

Hi I was wondering if you could look into seeing what the expiry date is on danish copyright images? The Bald One White cat 22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

the block

Yes, sorry, I wasn't looking carefully enough. Thanks for correcting the situation. Academic Challenger (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lee

Could you take a look at Matt Lee and see if it's different from the version at Matt Lee (musician) that was deleted just a couple of weeks ago? Thanks. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lee (musician) (2nd nomination). Corvus cornixtalk 06:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he's a super-secret admin?

You recently unblocked 76.248.146.114 (talk · contribs), acting on good faith that they aren't intentionally being less than straight with us. I think this edit is worrisome. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin Jacobsen (talk · contribs)

Another Swamilive sock looking for a block. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Now Delicious Jacobsen (talk · contribs). I started a thread at ANI to get people watching, but it's Sunday, so I'm not expecting much action. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Curious about CheckUser

Hi Black Kite. I'm curious about CheckUser. The results came in, and basically told you what you already knew. All the accounts that had been vandalizing in a similar fashion were indeed mine. But, everyone already knew that. As it stands, I can still create new accounts and edit pages, despite the CheckUser results and the blocking of all identified socks. So....what good has it done? Was it just to confirm that there weren't any sockpuppets that you guys might have missed? I could see that being useful, but it didn't really do that. In fact, if I hadn't mentioned it, then Madatown would have remained blocked. So, doesn't it do more harm than good to run a CheckUser? Stan Jacobson (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Not really. You're always going to get an occasional false positive from wide ISP ranges. And as you say, it did pick up a few of yours that hadn't already been noticed. Black Kite 17:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think User:Madatown is a Swamilive sock. They created articles on unremarkable albums just like Swamilive did for several Live (band) albums, and they seem to have previous WP experience. If they confine themselves to The Smalls-related articles, no harm done either way, though. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite serious. I have no idea who that user is. I know nothing about The Smalls. Besides, the edits I did regarding Live stuff was limited to singles, not albums, which is what Madatown seems to be doing. Stan Jacobson (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm boringly garrulous. I'll be brief. Very decent of you, sir to change that header. Thank youNishidani (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC).

Reply

Thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. -User:Jaakobou#Reply


-- JaakobouChalk Talk 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleland

You have some pretty strong words [3][4] about my block there. Specifically, which policy or guideline do you feel I violated that made it "inappropriate"? Toddst1 (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your warnings

Hi, 86.0.92.239 here, but with a different IP. Just to say that you're completely wrong in thinking that I'm TharkunColl, and I'm pretty certain that the other IP (from Ireland) is not HighKing. Much as I detest what HighKing is doing I'm almost certain that he, and Thark for that matter, never indulge in sock puppetry. Out of interest, why don't you have a look at what HK has been doing over the months. I think you'll find that he's a big problem here at Wikipedia. Thark and the others are merely trying to maintain the status quo. I'm not aware of any user actively adding the term BI to articles, but HK sure as hell is trying to get rid of it. Incidentally, you might as well unblock my former IP immediately. I won't be using it again but some other user might. Cheers. 86.10.1.31 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I am aware of HighKing's edits. On that particular one, I don't believe it's a major issue (GB & I does just as well). That isn't the case on all articles though, and I'm quite prepared to sanction HK (or Tharkun) if they do become seriously disruptive. Black Kite 22:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Response on the IP talk page. 86.10.1.31 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Black Kite. If there is edit warring over here, two are involved. I do not think it appropriate to only block User:86.0.92.239. He/she was right (at least in case of Tide), that User:HighKing's edits were not an improvement on the article (in my opinion). -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It is good you keep an eye on this. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Troubles

Since you commented: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Modified_remedies_proposal — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Law and Justice Lech Kaczyński again

Would you be willing to reactivate the range block on the IPs, if you think it would be the best idea? They came right off the block and into the same action, as I think you saw. I'm afraid the instructions for rangeblocks scare me to death and I don't trust myself to do it right! I've protected the pages in the meantime, since I do know how to do that! The IPs involved are 149.254.192.208 to 224. Thanks! --Slp1 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I have read a bit more, and tried the link, but it is all still a bit foggy to me. I get an error message when I put the exact numbers in: maybe I am supposed to replace the last numbers with 0 and 255? That seemed to work, and give a result that tied to your 0/24. But anyway, don't worry about trying to explain it to me if it is too much trouble. I may be best just to keep away from these things! I will unprotect the pages soon. Thanks again! --Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell freezing over?

Saying this not just because I think that's a really good proposal:

Thank you for making articles in general more encyclopedic by removing all those spurious fair-use images.

That is all. Giggy (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for monitoring ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_School_of_Athens It has come to my attention that user Sorba and in fact other users have tried to change the article to improve the school's credentials and general image despite the fact that the school is not generally noteworthy or even very prestigious in reality. In any case I will leave that to good-fathed (sic) admin/s and editors of wikipedia. However i would like to ask a verification of my suspicion that User:Sorba [5], User:Ditta43 [6] and User:Attica42 [7] are sock-puppets

Here is some evidence: Sorba made corrections in Ditta43's Talk Page (example [8])

Attica42 made editions in articles with the same attitude and opinions with Ditta43 (examples: [9] , [10])

Thank you again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.236.192 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Black Kite, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, SpencerT♦C 02:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Protecting User talk:Moleman 9002

I'm wondering if you might reconsider your protection on User talk:Moleman 9002? I know it sounds silly, but from his (admittedly brief) history, his user talk pages seem to serve as some sort of sandbox, and the distraction appears to keep him from creating socks. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do have it watchlisted, so if he starts acting up again, I'll ping you or RFPP. I could be wrong (and probably am), but I'm just figuring to give him a small shiny object and keep him occupied. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, he did edit his talk page, not as bad as before, but still trying to get his block overturned. So now of course, I'm regretting my earlier request to you. I posted on RFPP, but it was declined. Since you're already familiar I'll just ping you here now. Sorry to have caused any trouble. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh! Careful

I saw that you suggested that complaining to arbcom about TTN is a bad thing. Be careful ... I've been told that saying that making spurious arbcom complaints is bad is a crude attempt to intimidate those I disagree with. We couldn't have you doing things like that.

Sorry, just still in a bit of a bitter mood today. A little venting was necessary.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Jackiefightswell

please see my reply to your message on my talk. thanks Coffee joe (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the "Scene (youth subculture)" article

We need to write a new article to bring it back. It's a waste of time disputing the deletionists. They'll never get it. I was wondering what you had in mind. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Hi there, thank you much for supporting my recent RfA. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on email

See User Talk:Rlevse#WP:AE_report_on_Thunderer_and_subsequent_block — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluelinking the discussion for you ;), My email is open if you need to discus this case. :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Heya. I'd recommend a CheckUser, I have a suspicion (it might be the wrong geographical area, but the modus operandi seems like GH). If it IS linked to HK, I would definitely recommend a long term block for HK. SirFozzie (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the unnecessarily stirring/inflammatory message criticising Tharkuncoll that has today appeared on the Arbitration Enforcement page see here for it and my response pointing out how biased an interpretation it is, I wonder if some kind of investigation of Special:Contributions/79.155.245.81 would be in order? This anon IP editor appeared on 13 September 2008, and has effectively only edited on British Isles related areas, and the impression I have is of an established editor who is using this IP to post messages anonymously. Given their skills in making erudite points paying close attention to references, etc, it seems unlikely that the biased interpretation employed to criticise TharkunColl on the Arbitration Enforcement page was done accidentally, though it is, of course, possible.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser would likely be declined for fishing, so not sure about how to do so. SirFozzie (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I wondered whether it would be or not. Oh well! I do think there is a major problem of anonymous IP editors surrounding this area, who seem to pop up from nowhere and post inflammatory messages, and the sense I have is that they are established editors who are using wikipedia policy of allowing unregistered IP editors and checkuser policy to get away with sometimes quite outrageous comments. I can't think how to deal with it.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I used to ask that IP-in-question to register in, but he/she refused (saying it's not required, which it isn't). Therefore, my fingers are tied. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
If they are newish editors, their response seems to suggest an established editor who wishes to disguise their registered i.d., though I guess I could be mistaken.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) My thoughts now are that the best way forward is probably to familiarize ourselves with WP:TALK and warn editors who persistently ignore it when they post inflammatory material, or when they post rants, or when they initiate or continue politically motivated and politically laden comments rather than discuss specific ways of improving the specific article whose talk page it is. A set of escalating warnings with blocks if necessary may curb the excesses we have seen recently, given the intransigence of the disruptors.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

Hi Black Kite a quick question is this a reliable source it seems like a overlong blog and is being used as a ref. It is self published and would like your input thanks. BigDuncTalk 13:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Black Kite, if you have the time can you have a look over the UDR article if you check my contributions to the article since AE ended every edit I have made has been reverted and it looks like every edit Domer has made has been reverted too by the Thunderer. As you are aware this article is under 1RR sanctions. He made major changes without discussion and is ignorging consensus on the talk page. Also could you explain what is a revert as Thunderer has IMO reverted a lot more than once a day my reading of a revert is undoing another editors edits has he not done this numerous times? Today again he reverted my edits regarding Ronnie Gamble a non notable ex member which adds nothing to the article and is obviously someone that the Thunderer knows seen as he has given him permission to use his copyrighted photos on the article. BigDuncTalk 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fragments of Jade

Thank you for solving the issue so quickly back on the admin board... but I'm afraid she's back already with a new account.

Is there no way to block her IP or something? Erigu (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness I caught wind of this. I do not know why I am being accused of something. I've only just joined Wikipedia, and the only pages I've edited are for the Marl Kingdom series of games, which contain numerous errors. I did undo an edit the above person made in the process, but this was because it removed cited content-the fans' reaction to the removal of announced/promised content-and glitches. I do not see what is wrong with this. Did Wikipedia change its rules regarding citations? Lamiroir (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

I am sure you have a good rationale for the block, but can you explain it at User talk:Lamiroir, for admins that may come to review the unblock request? Cirt (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision Dance Contest

Malta in the Eurovision Dance Contest somehow missed out on its deletion. Same situation and part of the same group as seen here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Evangelion Re-Take

Thank you for deciding to delete "Evangelion: Re-Take". It simply didn't meet the rules and requirements. That said, those in favor of it are now requesting a change to those rules on WikiProject Anime and Manga. So we'll see how that goes. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Zografski

Vladimir Zografski was deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Zografski but he dosent fails WP-ATHLETE! AlwaysOnion (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Character images

Well I think the whole situation is really debatable. For starters, Eric was the protagonist of Saw II, and Amanda was pretty much the main character in III (the director has even gone as far to say that III was Amanda's story). Both of them have appeared in three movies, and there's no saying that they won't appear in anymore (although it's doubtful that Eric will given the actor's views...) I.E., they're not 'minor' characters. With Eric, I'll remove the deleted scene pic and move one of them to the main apart. But with Amanda, I think all the images are necessary given the article in that they show pivotal moments of the character's arc/history. I removed the tag for Eric as now they're only two images in the article, and one is for identification purposes. I won't remove Amanda's tag, but I hope that you'll reconsider your opinion on her article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Keyboard

I'd give you one, but it went soft before I had the chance ;o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  • There's no answer to that ;) Black Kite 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

AN case

Thanks for closing that case BK. I fear YKB isn't familiar with Wikipedia, yet. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Eaxgwb6643

I was just filling in the form to indef block for harrassment - do you have any objections to my unblocking to alter the block reason? Fritzpoll (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the block was several hours ago. I have unblocked and re-blocked this user, who has been harrassing Rschen7754 indef for harrassment. The change in reason was necessary to document why the block should be indef - it isn't just because of the username, and I didn't want him worming out of it that way. Anyway, just letting you know what I was up to Fritzpoll (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Somedays...

I wonder how homo sapiens made it as far as we did. Sigh. I'm amazed at how stupid I've been. Minimal use does mean every grain of sand on the beach. <head bang> --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

    • Black kite, this is a personal attack. Dissing my opinion and declaring me unfit is nothing short of sidtracking my arguments. I will not, I repeat I WILL NOT stop giving my opinion. If that is not to your liking, start the RfC now! Otherwise, STOP your personal attacks! — Edokter • Talk • 23:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable

- Apparently we used to be a Free Encyclopedia - equally apparently there are current attempts to ensure that we're not. Whilst such stupidity is going on, I probably need to concentrate on this. It's a shame, because ArbCom has previously indicated that it's clueless as regards fair-use, but hey. Next year perhaps. Black Kite 23:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • See also the top userbox on the right of my page. We're the free content encyclopedia because we say we are, didn't you know? 300,000+ fair use images is proof we're free content! --Hammersoft (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dede Koswara

Back in March, you closed this AfD as merge. An editor has decided that continuing coverage of essentially the same event (man with rare disease is still getting surgeries) and Help:Page name trump the result and make it unnecessary to abide by the AfD result or take it to DRV. We're discussing things on the talk page if you're interested. AniMate 03:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image(s) and fair use

Hey there.

FWIW, I think you're taking this debate a bit too personally; you're coming off as very aggressive, and dismissive of people who don't happen to think like you and it's not helping your position any. I know you strongly disagree, but you have to consider that people who feel the collage is within policy and should be kept may very well do so from a position just as informed and thought out as yours (and yes, that does include me).

I'm not here to try to change your mind, obviously, but to ask you to reconsider how you're defending your position. I'm probably one of the most mellow, and one of the last to start crying "NPA" and "CIVIL" around a debate, but I think you're toeing dangerously close to the line by now and chances are the only thing you'll achieve is create animosity. — Coren (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The people who think this image should remain have a complete lack of understanding of the m:mission of Wikipedia. If not to get angry with such a situation, when then? The situation is absurd. There shouldn't even BE a debate. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    No, they have a different understanding on how to best accomplish that mission. Yes, it means that anyone wishing to reuse Wikipedia contents needs to reexamine whether their own use of fair use material would also be fair use, or else not use it at all. Whether a potential reuse of Wikipedia requires work is not a concern for me; I'm interested in the value of Wikipedia itself. — Coren (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    Sounds good. Ok, let's allow liberal fair use then. It's not our concern if someone can use it downstream or not, so there should be no obstacles to having as much non-free content as we like. If you'd like, I'll help you craft a proposal to the Foundation to invalidate our m:mission and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. If you really truly believe in your stance, this is the logical path to take. I stand ready to assist you, and I'm not being sarcastic in any respect. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    Let's take this off Black Kite's talk page. I'm bumping this to yours. — Coren (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    (Striken above; it would appear that the invitation wasn't sincere). Sorry to have noised up your talkpage, BK; I'll shut up now.  :-) — Coren (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    It was quite sincere. See your talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sock Block Template

Hi there. I don't mean to try to bite you :) but please try to remember to subst all of the sockblock templates that you use. Thanks and if you would like to reply to this please use my talk page. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultrasaurus (Zoids)

Greetings! I would like to request that the page for the above mentioned name be made available again. Though not a favorite by many, the model has merits like figuring out in the anime series (though not a major character of course but essential to the story line none the less) and one of the biggest models Takara Tomy made. Please, please reconsider. thank you very much.--Rcmtiongson (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce

User Redspruce is engaging in the same behavior he has been blocked in the past for here where he removes all the quotes in citations in an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He is starting to go through the articles one by one again. He has now moved here stripping the quotes, and removing information I am adding, and not leaving an edit summary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Miniature Tigers

You deleted this article with the summary "per afd". Yet I don't see the normal link to the actual discussion so I am hesitant to attach the G4 speedy tag. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stafford Leys Primary School

Hi, I wonder if you would be good enough to look again at this close, please? The first point to make is that the only remaining delete view was made before the article was improved and still refers to its former state. The keepers asserted that the sources met WP:N. No-one in the discussion argued against that assertion. The fact that coverage is from a regional newspaper in no way invalidates it for the purposes of WP:N. Also, notability is an absolute standard - there is no requirement that any member of a class of articles (no pun intended) is distinctive from other members of that class. In my view, a merge is a version of keep, and that that was the appropriate close but I wouldn't argue if the article should survive as a no consensus. TerriersFan (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy PROD

Well, it was a PROD, not an AfD, but I still think suspected hoaxes should be discussed where people will know what they are talking about. i.e. at AfD. Unless ANI got over-run by plant experts when I wasn't looking. If you can bear to read the whole thread, see here. I wonder, though, since being able to PROD a suspected hoax bypassed the whole AfD process. How likely is it that those reading AfD (who might be able to tell a real hoax from a genuine article) will also be checking PROD? Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy set AfD

Very good call on a close AfD, good job! StarM 23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Except that I am concerned about your statement that "after a suitable time for encyclopedic information to be transferred, I will delete the original." I believe this would violate the GFDL if any content is merged. Why not just leave the redirect and its edit history intact? DHowell (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm satisfied with DHowell's merge work--he did a great job given the limitations imposed on the task--but, frankly, I share the concern that this merge work violates the GFDL. I believe all or most of the text that was transferred was my work (I recall typing a lot of that text and finding and adding all of those citations). DHowell's merge was not a synthesis, merely a paring down of the original article. Further, I do not believe that any synthesis could be possible that wasn't merely a rewording of the authors' work. Robert K S (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
      • As I don't currently have access to the original sources, this was the best I could do. A synthesized summary of unsourced content would have violated policy just as much as the original unsourced content (whether or not it would have violated GFDL), so I didn't do that. I copied over sentences which were referenced, and I used the few web sources I could access to make the few changes that I did from the original content. I think the section could stand a lot of improvement, but I can't do it unless I obtain more sources. DHowell (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Driveby comment ... I think you would be better of redirecting and protecting the redirect. That achieves the goal of making sure the article doesn't rise from the dead, the fair use images still all get killed off because they aren't actively being used, and the history stays intact.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • OK (and given Robert's comments), I'm happy with that too. Redirect it shall be. Black Kite 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Gifs, Png, jpegs

I notice you are changings the gifs in the Ascott House to pngs. Please don't! It means double saving them, as I am busy working through the articles of Giano, who uploaded them, and not simply resaving, but editting to improve the pic itself. It's a waste of time, if you are doing a similar thing, simultaneously. Amandajm (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, fixing them is a slow process. Giano is a big contributor and has heaps of FAs for articles on stately homes, but he doesn't seem to have much by way of computer skills! I will take me a while to get around them. My computer is running slow. Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Flag

Hi Black Kite could you have a look at my user and talk page I have an Irish flag in the top right hand corner beneath the wiki globe and it seems to have moved down a little and so has the green ribon I have on my talk page too. I have looked around a couple of editors who I noticed had flags behind the globe and there ones seem to have moved down too like here and here any ideas thanks. BigDuncTalk 21:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

You beat me to my troll remover switch :) BigDuncTalk 23:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You did not let me comment the content. What else can I do? Read the talk User:Eros_of_Fire/Talk:British_National_Party, I think my comment fit on the discussion and it was deleted.Eros of Fire (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

user: Ashfreak261

Is it possible that when I add stuff I shouldn't add, could you tell me first before deleting my page? I was REALLY worried when someone deleted my page..... -Ashfreak261 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Ashfreak261

Re; Setana

I think "list of flags" is a just a bit far afield of the locus of dispute (we've been getting into trouble as we broadly interpret the troubles, and at this point I was just waiting for Setanta to respond.--Tznkai (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

N.B. Setanta747 was also not informed of the thread by Domer as he should have been.--Tznkai (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Sarah brought up something on the AE thread that it turns out is very salient, you might want to chime in.--Tznkai (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
"if there are any more occasions where you use misleading edit summaries to sneak in contentious material, the above block will be reinstated."
I did not use any "misleading edit summary", and I resent your accusation. The entry I used was "disambig flag" or similar. The flag that had been displayed (and presumably, that which has been reinstated, knowing Wikipedia) is the wrong flag: it is the flag of the UK and not specifically the flag of Northern Ireland. --Setanta 14:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
"any use of the Ulster Banner (apart from articles on the flag itself) needs to be thrashed out on the talkpages." I tend to ignore that to some extent when it comes to anonymous IPs - especially when I suspect sockpuppetry by banned users. --Setanta 14:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops...

Thanks! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages

Hi
Just FYI, I mentioned a user talk page you protected at WP:AN#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages since it's one of a great number of indef semi protected user talk pages. I'm explicitly not complaining or reporting, it just happened to be one that I used as an example, since it's in principle against WP:SEMI.
Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

List of flags by country & List of countries

Hello Black Kite. IMHO, there's an inconsistancy on these 2 articles. The former lists England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland; the latter doesn't. Any idea what's going on there? GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment we have a fairly stable state on what has been a contentious series of issues with multiple edit wars, sock puppets etc. etc. At the end of that Wales, Scotland and England are described as countries (consistent with the definition in Country) with a massive supporting citation table. I have no issue with an inconsistency between the two lists as they are doing different things. There are too many proxy battles fought over this issue on minor articles. GoodDay is fully aware of the history having been an advocate of one of the solutions (constituent country) which did not achieve consensus. We also have games being played here with Northern Ireland. --Snowded TALK 03:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My attempts at compromise on those articles have failed. I was not able to get my point across. I'm dissapointed (yet again) by this inability of mine (but that's my problem). Apparently, one living in the UK seems to simultaneously live in 2 countries. Say England/UK, Scotland/UK, Wales/UK or Northern Ireland/UK. That's the only conclusion I've reached. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, that is essentially the truth of the matter. In this, I think most of Wikipedia accurately reflects this. The UK is a reasonably unique country in the way it is set up. I think a reasonable comparison might be the US, though only if it was claimed that the individual states of the US were countries and had histories of being countries. One might easily substitute the word "state" for the word country.. and in fact the word is often synonymous with the word "country", as you're no doubt aware! :) A former British Prime Minister - I think it was Blair - even said "countries within a country" in reference to the constituent countries of the UK. --Setanta 16:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Blaine Robinson

Not sure how I managed to recreate this article - all I did was to tag it db-bio! Peridon (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ta. I was worried there... Peridon (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Webb (footballer)

Although you have cited this article the information you cited was incorrect. I have removed the error. If Gary McAllister remembered Webb from his playing days then Webb will have been 6 and too young to have featured for a Leeds United team. 79.121.235.50 17:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.235.50 (talk)

Jeopardy! set evolution

I've left a comment in re: the Jeopardy! set evolution article on the Jeopardy! talk page. Srosenow 98 (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Obvious point

I'm not defending the block for a minute, but really "Why was the block of CdB left to David Gerard, who has previously conflicted with Giano?" Is there anyone left who has not "previously conflicted with Giano"? [11].--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Big Boss Inc. back again

Hey, since you blocked this user, I feel I need to let you know that he's probably back, as 216.120.170.5 (talk · contribs). He's been adding POV and original research to both Street Fighter II and Street Fighter IV like he did when he had the account. I've filed a SSP report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Big Boss Inc.. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Perfect Symmetry

Yeah, they know. I'm the major contributor, translator and administrator for the nah. Wikipedia and Wiktionary, as well as the whole of the interface for Wikimedia nah. projects. I know what's created, what's deleted, etc. I won't bother to add the link again; seems Wikipedia is not yet ready.--Fluence (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion vs. redirect

What happened to your decision to preserve the history of Jeopardy! set evolution and keep it a locked redirect for GFDL and other reasons? Robert K S (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

The RfA Barnstar
Black Kite, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_18&oldid=1147947558"