User talk:Black Kite/Archive 21

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

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Check this please

In lieu with List of officials of Valenzuela City, 2007-2010, do you want to consider the following articles in this page be an article here in Wikipedia? If you'll try to navigate on the pages, it will directs you into pages concerning Edmonton city councillors, and these councillors have their own Wikipedia articles, though they never need spin-out. Almost all of them are not notable. Please consider this thing.--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Kendrick7

User talk:Kendrick7 is requesting an unblock. He seems genuinely sorry, in both his unblock request, and in an apology posted before you blocked him. At this point, he does not seem likely to repeat his personal attack. Any objections to unblocking him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the autoblock, so it should be good to go. seicer | talk | contribs 15:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandal back again

You blocked the involved vandal once, so I'm drawing your attention to the ANI report.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Neon white's allegation of a "personal attack"

Sorry to bug you. Neon white still insists as a matter of fact that it was a personal attack - if you could explain on his talk page how his definition of personal attack is precisely what caused the problem, that would be greatly appreciated. :) There's no point in me talking to him any further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎

The information about "Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎" basically refers to Australian international soccer players who are of Croatian origin. This AfD concluded that the information should not be present on Wikipedia in article form; this category discussion concluded that it should not be present on Wikipedia in category form. If people don't want the information as an article, and don't want it as a category, then why is it still on Wikipedia? I would take this to WP:DRV but don't know if that is a suitable forum for what I'm after, as currently when the article is deleted the category is restored, and vice versa - any help would be appreciated. I have contacted yourself as closer of the AfD, and Jc37 (talk · contribs) as closer of the category discussion. Perhaps you can post on my talk page, so we can have a three-way discussion? Kind regards, GiantSnowman 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can join the discussion at WP:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Please also be aware of Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎‎. TerriersFan (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with The Fly (Dave Matthews song). Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kite, I sympathise with your efforts in reverting what could be bad faith nominations. After going through Juvenile Deletions long list, I could find only one which could meet non-notability criteria. I will revert back the afd tag and add my comments on A bre Makedonče. Cheers. JamesBurns (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Removing AFD tags

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was wondering why an admin would remove an AFD tag from a page. Maybe next time you could link to that discussion in the edit summary. –Dream out loud (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Deletion Mutation

I brought this guy up at ANI just now and I saw he restored some deletion tags that you removed. Another user suggested he was a sock of User:Juvenile Deletionist, whom you interacted with recently regarding his block. I was wondering if you'd like to add you take of the matter at ANI? ThemFromSpace 16:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Akashkunal

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

British Isles edit warring by User:MusicInTheHouse and others

I suppose it goes without saying that you realise that you've protected the wrong version? Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OK

Now that I have your attention you might protect Rivers of Ireland from a putative vandal. Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks! The spamming was getting tiring. Did I report that in the right place, though? I didn't see any page descriptions that looked more appropriate, but WP:AIV didn't look like it was precisely the right spot, either... -Bbik★ 23:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Rice University reversions

Just a heads up that your edits to the Rice University pages were reverted by User:Sergio1337. The meat-puppetry begins. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to converse with you about all the changes being made to the articles about the residential colleges at Rice University so that this does not devolve into an edit war. I assure you that to my knowledge, there are no "sockpuppets" reverting your edits or participating in the current debate. However, I feel your recent edits are far too bold and widesweeping. For example, in the Wiess College page, you deleted the entire section about the college's unique history and traditions. I feel this was an over-reaction that ultimately hurt the article. A better way would have been to summarize the traditions and culture that make that college distinct and notable, rather than completely erasing them. You also have a pattern of deleting any reference to Beer Bike and the colleges' traditions in that race. I recommend you reconsider. Though you yourself may not have heard of it and may consider it inconsequential, Beer Bike is the largest student event held on the Rice campus each year and is considered by many to be the most prominent tradition of the residential college system at Rice. The race itself is preceded each year by the world's largest annual water balloon fight, and many students are swayed to come to Rice because of the opportunity to participate in this event through a residential college. An encyclopedia entry about a Rice residential college is incomplete without mention of this famous and noteworthy event. I will not completely revert any of the changes you have made, and I hope no one else does. You justifiably removed a lot of extraneous information from the articles, but you also deleted a lot of important and relevant information in your one fell swoops. In the spirit of wikipedia, I will be working in the coming days on streamlining the deleted sections about the colleges' history and traditions so that the articles have a much more encyclopedic format and tone. I assume that this would be mutually acceptable, and I invite you to help.Mphornet (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm glad we can keep this civil!
The whole point of the facebook event, as I've stated multiple times, was a call to improve the colleges' articles by adding sources and removing extraneous info. When it started a couple days ago, there was a grand total of two sources from the eleven articles. Now there are over forty, and the number keeps rising. Given another couple of days, I have no doubt that the vast majority of the information you deleted could be adequately referenced and condensed in an acceptable manner. What wikipedia admins have been doing over the past few days is to strip the colleges' articles of nearly everything other than a description of their buildings; but as I've said before, these aren't dorms. The colleges are so much more significant than their buildings themselves.
Regarding the sock/meatpuppets, I agree that Sergio1337 was clearly recruited by the Facebook event. But he's one isolated individual. Nearly every other person involved in the event has been working to add sources and to make the colleges' articles more uniform, all for the betterment of wikipedia. Plus, as I've said before, I think you had deleted far too much from the articles all at once; so Sergio1337 wasn't completely unjustified in what he did.Mphornet (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'm definitely going to keep working on these articles until they're universally satisfactory.Mphornet (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Cabal

Thank you for removing the Speedy tag that was rushed onto the article. WIth it gone, no one will know that it had additional fresh sources or that attempts were made to address concerns f the earlier AfDs. What is the procedure for a DRV? I have never filed one. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 12:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that I didn't see your removal of the Speedy tag, I must have clicked delete just before you removed it, and of course then I was checking the delete page to make sure it was filled out correctly. But DRV is probably best anyway. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Content for merging from a closed AfD

Following a recent discussion at the newly created Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion, I would like to request userfication of the deleted article Solitude (song) (AfD available here). There seems to be general consensus at MRfD that this content is better merged than deleted, and I would like the opportunity to see if there is any content that should be merged. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Differences in articles

RE: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox The unloved article old Can you move the entire article history into user space, so I can see the differences that everyone talks about? You can move it here, User:Ikip/Alan Cabal or simply replace the existing version. I would like to see what changes were made. Ikip (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you so much. Ikip (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Addition to DRV process

Hi, you've been active as an administrator in the DRV process in the past so I would appreciate your comments on my suggested change to DRV requirements. Thanks! Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied

I've replied to your note on my usertalkpage. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd outburst

See diff. I don't think my input is wanted, but you might try to see what is going on, since you were the last person to unblock them. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

CadenS TopicBan

Note this comment from Admin Stwalkerster to Caden. Stwalkerster has retired and Caden was wondering what is happening with a reduction (which Stwalkerster was thinking about) of the 3rd topicban reset at User:CadenS/topicban. Would you please look into it when you get a chance? Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC) User:CadenS/topicban

I believe Stwalkerster retirement is an April Fools Joke, given the edit summaries. — R2 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering about that :) Black Kite 19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good prank by Stwalkerster. I will copy this request to his/her talk page. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK)

An editor has nominated List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK), an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. SpinningSpark 15:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Attention!

I'd like to draw your attention to the comments made by The Ogre at User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim#Suspicion. I see you've already been involved in this. Any thoughts? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Planet of Dead Image

If you don't agree with the fair Use criteria (given here) then nominate the image for deletion at WP:FFD. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that Matthew was blocked for 3RR-ing on precisely the same edit you're making, according to Deacon and Xeno's interpretation that if established editors dispute, then it's not a "clear" violation.
Could I ask that you take this to FUR; what else do you suppose that page is for, if not this? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FUR states: The Non-free content review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss whether media without free content licenses are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. It doesn't seem entirely irrelevant - in fact, I've no idea what one would use the page for if not precisely this sort of thing. Could you perhaps enlighten me?

And also, I do take the point that there's only 9 days until the episode, but I do feel that you took an un-necessarily confrontational approach to this, and would again direct you to the fact that Matthew wasn't protected by the 3RR "exception" and I don't imagine you would have been either! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If Matthew posts an unblock request he should be unblocked - he's in the right. I would have done it myself except I am involved here now which might be seen as use of admin tools in a dispute. Black Kite 18:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It would certainly be seen as that! But he hasn't posted a request anyway, as you say.
Do you have any comment to make about this comment by Xeno, by the way?
And as to the use of the FUR page? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)

Hi, Black Kite. You closed a controversial (based on the subjectivity of many comments) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination) today as a redirect to Wife Swap. In your review, you asked "would there be any notability whatsoever if this person had not appeared on that program", and wrote "clearly no." Although some users argued ONEEVENT (the two Wife Swap episodes), not all during the discussion agreed that the national GMA (unrelated to Wife Swap), local radio show(s) (unrelated to Wife Swap/ordinance issue), newspaper articles (such as this one: [1]), Sirius (six different interviews unrelated to Wife Swap), and ordinance issue (explained more in-depth in this article I just found [2]) were minor. If they really are, what additional coverage would be required to include a stand-alone article on Silver? I appreciate that you decided to put up a redirect instead of deleting outright, but most of the info included in Silver's article isn't appropriate there, because it would compromise Wikipedia:Undue_weight. Regards, Spring12 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(continued from my talk page) Well, can we try to discuss this, first? I feel like many !votes didn't follow WP:NPOV, and should have been discounted under Wikipedia:Consensus#Community_discussions. Spring12 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(continued from my talk page) Okay, I have a long list of things that should have been either discounted or given considerably less weight under Wikipedia:Consensus#Community_discussions. (Before I begin, I would like to remind anybody reading this that I mean these observations in good faith, and they are not meant as personal attacks, but for a method of accurately assessing community consensus.)

1. Nominator Shannon Rose violated WP:NPA several times during the course of the discussion including reasons listed at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Sheree_Silver_Controversy. User was blocked, and continued in an unblock request: [3] (as well as in a "comment" to the discussion: [4]). Comment during the discussion was also noted as a possible WP:BLP violation: [5].

2. Eusebeus didn't explain what he was referring to (about) WP:Bio. Just stating 'delete' per a policy, without explaining why something doesn't meet that policy, should count as a "vote," not a contribution to the discussion.

3. Shot info's reason for deletion, "sources are weak at best," appears to be a comment on the sources in the article, not on the notability of the subject.

4. Hoary, the second-most contributor to the discussion, made several uncivil statements about Wikipedians and the article's subject including: [6] and [7], which indicate not following WP:NPV due to discussing the subject's "beliefs," not the context of the discussion, and potentially influencing his 'delete' decision.

5. Kaiwhakahaere, who assisted with the article after its restoration from a deletion review, has made threats of bringing the article to an AFD in this edit: [8], and his/her rationale for deletion (other than 'per nom and others') was "He/she has a blatant COI and as long as this article exists it could never be encyclopedic." User also cited a misquoted example in the article (corrected upon reading).

6. OrangeMike's statement, 'fails to make any of our feeble standards for notability and verifiability' did not explain which standards where being violated/not being meet.

7. EdJohnston's delete discussed contributors, not content as recommended by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It also asked whether the subject would be notable "in five years," while according to WP:Notability "notability is not temporary." He/she stated, "it suggests that the case for the subject being notable is still in doubt," but did not give a reason for deletion other than the above, which are not valid Wikipedia:Del#Reasons_for_deletion.

8. llywrch recommended the article for deletion because "Maybe I'm being elitist, but I honestly can't imagine anyone wanting to read an article about some nobody who appeared twice on a reality television series," which indicates a personal opinion, rather than a rationale for deletion.

9. Vartanza commented "This is exactly what Wikipedia should not be--a place where people who are within a long-arm's reach of notable for some obscure event use that event to pitch their product, ideology, etc.", stated a noble cause but did not clearly explain how Silver didn't meet notability guidelines. Instead, it appears to be referring to Silver herself creating the article to "pitch their product, ideology, etc." While Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox concurs with this as a problem, this rationale for deletion could be fixed through editing, rather than deletion, if the article reads like an advertisement (which has been improved since this comment).

10. One of Verbal's rationales, "This is merely a promotional page and should be deleted," is not reason for deletion. This, too, can be fixed through regular editing.

11. Brunton didn't state why the subject wasn't notable.

12. Hekuri went with delete because "the article fails to establish notability," which is also not a reason for deletion. The article can be improved through regular editing in this regard.

13. Later in the discussion, Shoemaker's Holiday commented: "If we removed the statements from the article justified by patently bad sources, we'd be left with a paragraph of material, and no possibility of expansion. This should be deleted." Articles are not automatically deleted for being stubs.

14. ukexepat's original comment was "non-notable, fancruft," not explaining how Silver wasn't notable. As an aside, he/she pointed out the article wasn't neutral (which isn't a reason for deletion), and the article was since tagged with "neutrality disputed."

15. Rocksanddirt called the article's subject a "crackpot," against WP:NPV. Hoary (mentioned above) concurred.

15. JohnCD implied the article's subject didn't meet WP:PROF and WP:ENTERTAINER. Silver is neither, so they are not valid reasons for non-notability.

16. Doctorfluffy did not explain how Silver was "non-notable" in reference to Wikipedia.

17. WebHamster's rationale for deletion was: "It's bad enough at the best of times to keep WP from becoming a directory of cranks, loons and non-notables. The deletion of this article will go some way to restoring the balance!" This implies Silver (and other article subjects) is possibly a "crank, loon, and non-notable," which would be a WP:NPV violation. "Save us from having a WP article on every one who does" is not a valid reason for deletion," and WebHamster went off-topic in replies.

18. Ryan4314 didn't specify how "only notable for being on Wife Swap" didn't meet notability guidelines.

The discussions left over seem to lead to either no consensus or "keep," most have been responded to in the AFD. Regards, Spring12 (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

19. Bali ultimate called the article's subject a "non-notable crackpot," (violating WP:Civil) Spring12 (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Just noticed this: Spring is being a bit selective here: For instance, he says that I said:


What I actually said was:


The this should be deleted referring back to all three sentences. This was also only one of several comments that I made. For instance, he did not choose to quote the discussion in response to his point 7, in which I pointed out:


This is nothing but rules-lawyering, selective quotation, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in an attempt to discount views he disagrees with. He turned the AFD into a circus, arguing with every single "delete" vote, and now is selectively quoting tiny parts of those discussions, claiming that if a person ever said anything that he can rules lawyer away - and voted delete - that their vote should be discounted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Shoe. Ta --Shot info (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
My head has been upped to this on my talk page. I'd start by disagreeing with Holiday's description of Spring12's conduct. Spring12 was welcome to argue, and Spring12's arguing did not turn the AfD into a circus. Let's turn to what Spring12 writes above, and not the matter of the conduct or character of the writer. Spring12 raises some serious points. I have my own opinions on some of what Spring12 says, and some of the comments that I could make would be as strong as Holiday's. But I'm not going to express them here. If Spring12 really believes that the article was deleted as a result of misconduct, misunderstandings, etc., then Spring12 is welcome to take the matter to WP:DRV, and the argument can proceed there. I strongly suggest that Spring12 should not do this in the short term, because I'm pretty sure that it would not succeed, would irritate people, and would turn some people against a later article that could be genuinely worthwhile (and which of course I'd support) if/when Silver acquires more notability than what she has at this point. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I do so like to be entertained on a Monday afternoon. I've been doing some perusing through the thesaurus just to see if I can find a synonym for whining. Obviously there are plenty of alternatives but none that effectively target a description of the above quite as well. Are we sure Spring is a man, are we sure Spring isn't Silver, are we sure Spring doesn't want to 'bear Silver's children'? Could someone please explain to Spring that an article's existence is not dependent on any particular editor's ardour/fervour/eagerness/obsessiveness (see I told you I went mooching through the thesaurus) and most definitely not to running to teacher and telling her/him why the big boys in the playground wouldn't play with him/her. ...Hammy wanders off shaking head not knowing whether to chuckle or to improve one's home defences. --WebHamster 12:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • C'mon, Hamster. First, let's not concern ourselves with anybody's identity or motives, unless we have external evidence. Secondly, you misinform: The existence of quite a large proportion of my articles, say, is indeed dependent on my ardour/fervour/eagerness/obsessiveness. (Here's just one recent example.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(Black Kite, I'm responding her due to the quantity of comments, thanks) This was what I was worried about when bringing this up. First, I admitted in my first sentence before this list, "should have been either discounted or given considerably less weight under Wikipedia:Consensus#Community_discussions," so it's not an effort to "running to teacher telling her/him why the big boys in the playground wouldn't play with him/her." (As Black Kite pointed out on my talk page, and I agree) there were indeed several !keep votes that also should have been discounted/given less weight, but the discussions left over, might be seen as "no consensus," rather than "delete and redirect" (based upon Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_is_not_in_numbers). Wikipedia is not a democracy. I've tried discussing this with Black Kite, and he recommended drv. I'm still thinking about it, because I don't want to do this in bad faith, and want to be absolutely sure or have new evidence before bringing it up (per Hoary's comment). Apologies for (possibly) offending the involved parties by discussing this here, Spring12 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Blimey, this is a real WP:TLDR mess. I am not going to defend the position I took in the Afd - it was perfectly reasonable even if Spring12 didn't agree with it. As I mentioned in the Afd and in the ANI that they filed about User:Shannon Rose, haranguing almost every single editor who commented, and now repeating those comments here, is ridiculous. Spring12, just face it, the community discussed, an admin reviewed that discussion and made a decision. It happens to us all, and we just have to live with it. – ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. WP:DRV is the correct forum for this; could we either take it there, or drop the subject please. Further argument is not going to lead anywhere. Black Kite 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Would I AFD?

Rather than repeat myself here, I commented on my response to your question here. DGG brought up some good points for me to think about in regards to whether or not it would be a good idea for me to get involved in AFD closes. BOZ (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Football deletion archive

Hi there, make sure when you remove old AfDs on the football project page that you add them to the deletion archive. Peanut4 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Heh, yes my error, got distracted by doing too many things at once :) Black Kite 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Accidental revert

Sorry, was looking through my watchlist and accidentally hit "rollback". My bad. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your prediction

Re: [9]. I take it you hold out no hope for a last-minute surge? Anyway, I find it interesting how people feel so free to accuse me of incivility. I can understand why they fear that my biases might excessively influence my actions, but I'd argue that even the quotes they feel so free to club me with don't violate WP:CIVIL.—Kww(talk) 00:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures heads up

Someone emailed me with questions about image attributions, which I don't know much about (I recall you doing image related stuff and was really the first person whom I recall doing image related stuff that came off hand and suggested to the emailer to perhaps try the Help or to see if you think they'd be okay as you would probably know better than I would and I didn't know who else to suggest). Anyway, so you may or may not have someone ask; I hope that's okay recommending other users for help and all. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Why? You deleted ITunes Originals – R.E.M. with the justification of an AfD. I don't see one linked and I don't recall there being an AfD tag on the page. I think there is some kind of error here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your response. For what it's worth, let me register my displeasure at these articles not all being tagged for deletion - this is something that would never be done with categories. Could you please undelete it to my namespace - something like User:Koavf/R.E.M. - so I can take the material and integrate it into R.E.M. discography? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again I don't have the time or energy to mark it and I don't really care, since I merged the content, but I wouldn't be surprised if other editors get a little peeved when they notice their work deleted without even a tag. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Looseleaf

Although I deprodded, on reflection I am convinced that this'd not survive AfD (even as I would !vote "keep"), and so I'm not inclined to press the issue, but I imagine that I should note that allexperts.com, the site from which this was supposed to have been taken, is a mirror of Wikipedia, such that the copyright infrigement is much likelier on their end than on ours (when content on an external site duplicates that of Wikipedia [as I gather this does of an early version of the page] and contains our formatting [here, the bizarre "#REDIRECT deliberative assembly" at the end], one at least should wonder about which came first). My preference would be that you undelete and reopen the AfD, concomitantly listing at WP:CP if you like, but I don't think that I'll take the issue to DRV if you don't. (And, although I'm no fan of your recent work vis-à-vis BLP, I am compelled to note that anyone who cares about the issue might want to check the biographies that cite the site as a source (amongst the 309 pages citing allexperts.com are at least ten BLPs); it appears that some content is circularly sourced, being attributed to what are really crawled earlier versions of Wikipedia articles.) 69.212.18.5 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at my RFA

Just so you don't miss it, I've responded to your oppose at my RFA. Since there's only a day left, it would be much appreciated if you could take a look and comment. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF??

I used an image from the commons and it still got replaced. WorldChampion392 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

200000-article milestone.

Hillo, Black Kite, sorry for the interuption but I just have a question and would like to ask some sysop at English Wikipedia. I am a admin from Chinese Wikipedia. We used to have a tradition that the logo will be changed when we hit a new milestone, say 100,000 articles. We also change the logo during the traditional Chinese New Year. However, these days people started to propose new logos for Christmas, Valentine's Day and many other holidays and the discussion involves even religious or political issues. I would like to know if the English Wikipedia will change its logo on certain special days, and whether there has been a consensus on this issue? Thank you for your time! Best regards --Ben.MQ (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Historian19 sockpuppet

Could you do the honours with Buenos-Aires City (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Eireland09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too please. O Fenian (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_Community_ban_of_Sceptre

Sorry for allowing myself to be baited. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Sceptre is now edit-warring to revert you there. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Not true, my proposal was actually serious. RTV means RTV, not RTCBUANNASTA. We should deal with these problems, not ignore them. Ergo, I've unclosed the discussion because I honestly don't think the matter is resolved. If we couldn't do that, why does {{unresolved}} exist!? Sceptre (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You are trolling that discussion and now edit warring. You have been blocked for harassing inclusionists in the past. You will not start harassing me now as well. Do not mischaracterize my edits any further and do not attempt to derail and disrupt a thread about another editor by making it about someone else. BOTH you and the editor under discussion there need to leave me alone already! Contribute to Wikipedia constructively, not to harass those with whom you disagree. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"Please, please, sir! The big bullies are "harassing" me!". Pulling the harassment card makes people who have suffered from real harassment look bad. This is not a matter you being an inclusionist. This is a matter of you abusing RTV. Sceptre (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

itunes originals deletion?

Hi there; I was looking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Originals and, with respect, I'm trying to figure out how the discusion closed as "delete".

The nominator moved to delete, the first responder moved to delete all but the main article (perhaps you didn't notice that comment); There are six keep/merges offered

There are seven other delete/delete all's (8 including the first 'delete all but the main article).

So in my view, there are 7 "deletes" and 7 "merge/keep" for the main article (plus the nominator). In my eyes, that's non-consensus. I'm just curious if I missed somethihng. Similarly, it's 8 deletes (plus the nominator) and 6 keeps (for the sub-articles). That's somewhat week consensus, if any. I really don't see how this is consensus for deletion. I'm curious for you opinion before I consider whether to move for the discussion to be reopened. Thanks. TheHYPO (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to revisit that page, Drmies's comment reads: "Delete the lot, and continue the list in the main article, which I think is notable enough" - so technically his comment is that the main article should be kept but the subs should be deleted. TheHYPO (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Iman Abdulmajid

Though I'm sure you meant well, there was no need to protect the Iman Abdulmajid article, as there was no edit war going on. What happened was that User:Georgewilliamherbert once prematurely renamed the page without having reached consensus, and I, again, once simply moved the page back. However, consensus has since then been reached in favor of Iman (model), so there is no reason for me to move the article back to its other name. It makes no difference to me whether you lock or unlock the page. I just wanted to clear that up. Middayexpress (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

I'm not all that familiar with these, but I think you deserve some sort of award for infinite patience. Have a beer. pablohablo. 21:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Roll...

...back. I saw you in the list of "Admins willing to (etc)" and I'd like the rollback option, please. Thanks, Yintaɳ  14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Seebo

Thank you, very much. And I definitely will. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 23:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Question regarding your edit

Click for discussion

The entire WP entry for the "MIT Blackjack Team" is listed as not properly sourced.

You said that my entry below was self-promotional and non-sourced: "In 1999 a member of the Amphibians, who would still like to remain anonymous, won Max Rubin's "3rd annual Blackjack Ball" and was called "Best Blackjack Player in the World, 1999". Mitted (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)"

A link can be provided to an on-line copy of a "Cigar Aficionado" article written about the event in 1999. Is this still not a sufficient source? Most of the whole WP article can be removed on the grounds of not being properly sourced, and I believe I am being discriminated against when my addition is more sourced than much of the information in the entry.

Secondly, in my final edit entry I removed any reference to myself or my website. Yet, somehow the entry is considered self-promotional? I don't understand. It is a historic fact that in 1999 an MIT team player became regarded as best in the world, and it is pertinent to the article to include this information. How can I include this in the article? Can you give me an example of how this can be included? Thanks very much.

Ted Johnson

Thanks for your reply. Here is the link: http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Archives/CA_Show_Article/0,2322,324,00.html Mitted (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, hope you don't mind my responding here. The article is a fluff piece about a party. There is a party game where the winner is called "the best blackjack player in the world." No one takes this seriously. The last time I saw it, in addition to some Blackjack tests involving much laughter and Champagne, you had to hit a ball into a cup with a putter that had been cut and loosely tied back together to make it swing uncontrollably. It's great fun. But to seriously state in an encyclopedia that "It is a historic fact that in 1999 an MIT team player became regarded as best in the world" simply makes no sense. There is no such thing as the best BJ player in the world. These are party games and the guy that runs the party would be the first to say so. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This conclusion is flawed because it does not look at the consistent caliber of players who have historically won at the party. Members from the top teams attend the party, the best people in the world compete. The article does not mention much of the blackjack and professional gambler aspect of the competition. The competition had 3 parts. Also - believe it or not things like playing golf are a skill that matters in the professional wagering business. The winners are indeed a best-guess estimate of the best players in the world. To give you an idea of what I am talking about - the 2008 winner has a book on professional gambling selling for $1000/copy, went to Harvard, and also won a court case which put a nasty anti-professional blackjack PI company "Griffin Investigations" out of business. It's not random fluff and nonsense.

I also want to find out how this vile lying guy Objective3000 can be barred from his edit warring. He even edit wars into this page. Thanks. Mitted (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, the party is sponsored by a California casino. The last winner was a lawyer not at all known for playing Blackjack. These are just party games and almost no one even knows who's won the game. And, I'm getting a bit weary of the constant personal attacks that I am vile, ignorant, a liar, etc. I am a volunteer like everyone else here. I have been nothing but polite to Mr. Johnson as can be seen by my talk page.Objective3000 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a a talk between me and Black Kite. Wow - this guy Objective3000 is a total liar. WOW! BlackKite, if you can direct me to a page on how to get someone banned from editting on wikipedia, I would like to look into it for this Guy "Objective3000". He is a total liar engaged in a personal attack against me, who even edit wars with lies onto this very page.

If you want a link to the 2008 winner's $1000 book, his court case win, etc, let me know. In fact, if you want a link to anything or just want to ask me about it, let me know. The idea that the party was sponsored by a California casino is laughable. I am not edit warring with this guy anymore. Mitted (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • OK, that's enough I think - let me look at the sources and see what I can do to keep both parties happy. Black Kite 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Johnson's facts are incorrect. The last winner was Honcho, not James. And the sponsor is the Barona Casino. He may be confusing the party game with the BJ Hall Of Fame. In any case, I will retire from here as I do not get into name-calling wars. Mr. Johnson just posted to his Talk page that I am a pathological liar. These daily attacks do not help the aims of WP. If you have any questions, please use my Talk page. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely false! The Barona Casino sponsors the Blackjack Hall of Fame! It doesnt sponsor the party and it doesnt sponsor the Blackjack Ball, which I won in 1999 to become the best in the world that year! I demand an apology from this guy!! I am totally correct when I talked about the Blackjack Ball winners being of the highest caliber - and I mentioned the 2008 winner, not the 2009 winner, whose name I do not know. The 2008 winner is indeed James Grosjean, does indeed have a book which sells for $1000, did indeed win a court case against Griffin Investigations, and did indeed go Harvard. A tthis point I am simply trying to add valuable historical information to the wikipedia page "MIT Blackjack Team", and the guy Objective3000 who didnt bother to check his facts decides to get into an edit war with me, refuses to apologize for being wrong, and even takes his warring to this page where I was having a normal talk w/BlackKite. I demand an apology from this guy as according to Wikipedia Etiquette! Mitted (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing forbidden about other people posting on a user talk page. If you can then it is a right for them to do so as well. You telling people off for that happening is a violation of WPs ownership policy, let alone it being counted as edit warring. If you keep adding this information without discussion then they are no more warring than you are. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a sad day when someone can directly lie and claim to be an editor on Wikipedia, and that's exactly what Objective3000 does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitted (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This has gone too far. I have told no lies. I have made zero incorrect statements. This guy has been calling me a pathological liar, ignorant, of bad character, etc. threatening me and demanding that I apologize for not agreeing with him, on three pages ever since he arrived. He even deleted my words from my Talk page defending myself from attack. I have responded politely or withdrawn each time. He has never made one edit to WP that has stuck as they have all been self-promotional. Even after I withdraw and stop responding, he continues his false accusations. This must stop.Objective3000 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Objective3000, you've shown a reckless disregard for the truth, have violated Wikipedia Etiquette, and committed numerous faux pas. As a new member here, who is learning the rules of etiquette and so on, I am shocked to see that someone like you has been allowed to persist at Wikipedia for so long. It reflects really poorly on Wikipedia. You made zero incorrect statements? That's laughable - see my above post. You have shown a reckless disregard for the truth in a consistent manner. Mitted (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The only reason why s/he has been doing, what you claim to be, a violation of WP:Etiquette Is because it seems that you have been doing the same. Stop spouting lies and this dispute might get resolved. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  12:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Tea Protest re: Pajamas TV estimate

With respect, there is no way we should support that edit. Please refer to my comments on the article's discussion page. Thanks!--Happysomeone (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC) We may want to consider, unfortunately, having him blocked on the three-reverts rule.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Not yet, anyway. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

hope it wasn't anything I said. — Ched :  ?  03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Astro-cruft

Just thought you might be interested, I've just gone through the series of Chinese zodiac articles and removed all the sections of "traits" astrology cruft from those too, after finding that our friend Sotos had been socking on them. If you want to help keeping an eye on them... Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

want to say thx to Black Kite

Just wanted to say thanks for your help, Black Kite. To let you know - malicious editors again deleted the contributions I made (which you helped me with and approved of) and started lying - it never ends here apparently. I am no longer going to cite wikipedia as a reliable source, and plan to spend my time elsewhere. Mitted (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For the second time, mitted has removed my text from my Talk page. How do I stop this?Objective3000 (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please, how do I stop this vandalism? He is now changing words on my Talk page to change my position. And he removed my words on this page. Both without logging in. This is the third time I have posted this herfe. He keeps removing it.Objective3000 (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the protection.Objective3000 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The contest is just a cute party game. No casino play is involved whatever. Very few experts take part in the game. It is really quite absurd for an encyclopedia to state suggest that he is the "Most Feared Man in the Casino Business" because of a piece in a cigar magazine about a party. Thirteen people have won over the years, including non-players. We could end up with all the party game winners listed. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of all of the pictures on List of Robotech characters

I noticed you removed all of the pictures in the article List of Robotech characters. Your rationale was that non-free images were already used in "main articles" and that using them on this page as well is overuse. However, this is untrue. The examples you cited, Henry J. Gloval and Lynn Minmay, do not have separate articles. The articles you may have been thinking of was for the character in the The Super Dimensional Fortress Macross, which is a separate TV series. These articles are unrelated to the characters listed on this page. This list is the only place where the characters are mentioned in Wikipedia). This is because most of the separate pages for Robotech Characters were recently merged into this one article (which is why there are so many pictures). Could you please review your decision and/or provide an additional explanation. To avoid conflict, I won't undo your changes until you reply.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

In response to you comments on my talk page: I guess I can see your point. My concern was based on the impression that the reason above was the only justification for the pictures' deletion. I appreciate your explanation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_21&oldid=1096184227"