User talk:Black Kite/Archive13

  Talk Page archives: 01-02-03-04-05-06-07-08-09-10-11-12 To leave me a message, click here  

My photographs
You have tagged many of my photographs as "non-free 3D art" This is nonsense. The work is mine. The fact that the original toy contains copyrights in no way affects my ability to photograph & distribute work using them as subject matter. hpholland

too kind, too kind. Voncrass (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
It's OK - much appreciated. :) BOZ (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

restoring deleted links
I have been unblocked but every single link to my website is still removed from Wikipedia. There were dozens, many of which had been up for more than five years. Since you clearly don't want me to post links to my own site, is there anything I can do about this? Here's a perfect example. I wrote the liner notes to Criterion's laserdisc of Five Easy Pieces which they had on their site. There was once a link to these notes on the Five Easy Pieces page. When Criterion dropped Five Easy Pieces from their catalogue, the link was no longer good, so I changed it to a link to the exact same article on my site. Now THAT link has been removed. Nobody has questioned the authority of the article. It's only been removed because I'm the one who posted it. Okay, I promise not to post any new links to my site, but is there any way to restore the old links, the ones that have been up for years without any problems?

Noahveil (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Batplane
I have reverted your changes to this. Whilst the small number of images (3) that were on there is obviously compliant with WP:NFCC, the number that you restored to (18) is clearly not (WP:NFCC). I suspect the correct figure lies somewhere between the two, but I have reverted to the obviously compliant version whilst that is discussed.  BKNFCC  06:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're looking at the wrong section of the wrong page : )
 * See: Non-free_content. - jc37 01:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but NFC is a guideline, whilst NFCC is policy. Even so, how can 18 images satisfy NFC when it says "non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry" ? Black Kite 06:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, WP:AADD, aside...
 * This doesn't concern photography or "stand-alone" imagery. So the typical reasoning for NFC doesn't apply ("...in the hopes of gaing a free version...") That just won't happen with copyrighted characters, and other "things" of name from an animation series or comics series.
 * But even that aside, this is a list page, and it illustrates the differences between each model of Batplane. When I look over a few encyclopedias I have here at home, this rather commonly done. Even we do this. (See: Ford Mustang.)
 * So yes, this rather clearly qualifies.
 * That said, I'm going to start a discussion at WikiProject Comics concerning this. If the images are deleted in the meantime, we can always restore them. - jc37 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

re User:Tool2Die4 unblock
Hi, thanks for your message at my talkpage. I am always open to having blocks executed by me to be reviewed and lifted/amended as appropriate. Thanks for taking the time to advise me. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NFimageoveruse
Hi. Is NFimageoveruse meant to be different from non-free. Maybe a redirect would be appropriate? I like your wording better. Rettetast (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Busy next Sunday?
Meetup? Hope it's not too short notice.  Majorly  (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Encore Images
Hi I just wanted to say that the past & present images that are included on the Encore (Premium TV) such as Encore's past & present logos, the logos for its multiplex services do fall under the fair use guidelines. If you are going to target the Encore article for this then explain why it is acceptable for MoviePlex, Starz (TV network), HBO, Showtime, The Movie Channel, Country Music Television, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon (TV channel), Nick at Nite, Nicktoons Network, The N, Spike (TV channel), etc. To Have past & present logos on their page and how come other premium movie services with multiplex's can have their various multiplex's logos on their page as well? Just because some articles are more developed than others shouldn't be an excuse. Forgive me but I find it really hypocritical for one article to be targeted while others get away with the same thing. I restored the one image gallery with the past & present logos again as they are significant to the article. Please reply on my talk page if you would be so kind.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  17:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, surely not all the images on the article violate fair use. From what I understood they were acceptable.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  18:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed the image issue. Each image in the Encore serves a significant purpose. The previous Encore logos are included to illistrate what the article is referring to, the True Stories and Encore Drama logos are included to illistrate how the Encore multiplexes were branded prior to 2005 and after 2005. I did not include the rest of the logos. Does this help any?  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Station Jim
I note your comment on my talk page about an article I created today. Someone seems to have speedily deleted it. Was that you? I intend to take the matter to DRV but am not sure if there's a log for such deletions and how it may be reviewed. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the process for reviewing AFD closes but am not sure how it works with speedy deletions. It would be useful to establish the facts of the matter first but I'll start the DRV and see if it explains. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked yet to see if the DRV has started, but as you (Black Kite) closed the AfD here, you should have seen that Colonel Warden created Station Jim in response to a comment I made at the AfD. See here. I don't want to upset you, but you either failed to read the AfD before closing it (not good) or you failed to assume good faith when you said to Colonel Warden (under the heading "stuffed dog") "I'm not sure if there is a method behind you creating less and less notable articles just to see what happens". I read that article when Colonel Warden created it, and it looked fine to me. I also see that you recreated the article as a redirect, and then deleted it again. I see you also merged the material into Slough railway station and then took it out again. What on earth is going on here? Seems a bit pointless when a merge or leaving it alone would have avoided 100% of all that. I've been quietly working on other stuff all day, and I only discovered this when I came to upload the picture I had of this stuffed dog. The dog is clearly notable. But I'll say more at the DRV. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

HBO images
It depends on what you define excessive images. WP:NFCC#3a: Multiple items are not used if one will suffice (Article is also illustrating the multiplex channels). Then why are we allowing any logos at all, if you can't illustrate the logos on the individual channels in each article from HBO, Encore (Premium TV)‎, etc. I can understand the size image should be small. As the other user pointed out, screenshot images (such as studio photos) are not significant and useless compared to logos, which illustrate the actual company, product, etc. Also, some logos on here can not be found anywhere else, which makes Wikipedia a valuable resource for historical images like an encyclopedia. I hope that makes sense. Rivertown (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply back. I see someone has already cleared the logos off anyway. Rivertown (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in infoboxes
Please do not remove the image and image tag from infoboxes. Images in infoboxes are placed there in an identifying context to the subject in question and are not forbidden by any image policy. Thank you. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD redirect.
Hello, in a recent AfD you closed it with

"The result was Redirect all to Aghabullogue GAA. No merge, as the contents of the identical articles is already in the merge target. Black Kite 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)"

Obviously the _names_ are missing in the merge target. Was it your intent to not merge that content? Hobit (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

please restore Dare Foods to my userspace
Another editor created an article on Dare Foods, which was speedily deleted. I think that with the references at http://news.google.ca/archivesearch?q=%22Dare+Foods%22 and http://library.uwaterloo.ca/develop/dare.html, it would now be possible to turn the previous article into an acceptable one. Could you please restore the article to my userspace so that I can work on it? --Eastmain (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

East Enders
All of your NFCC tagging regarding abuse of non-free content has been reverted. None of the images meet our NFCC #8 policy. the same user reverted my removal of said images. I would recommend just deleting. βcommand 2 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunder Mifflin keep decision
You commented on how well sourced this article was, but each and every source on the page was either an episode of the show or an NBC site advertising the show. There are two lines of secondarily sourced material, with every other source being a primary source. How does this qualify as notable when one of the core requirements for notability is significant coverage in reliable (secondary) sources?

I am frustrated because there is a distinct preponderance of editors who seem to be less concerned with creating good articles by following WP, and more and more focus on aggregating as much trivia as possible with little or no care for quality.

Wikipedia is being used more commonly as a primary source for others. It is being included in mobile devices as a reference material (such as the Kindle). Now is the time to be focusing more on quality and adherence to core policies. I am concerned that the project is spiraling in a direction where no amount of help by concerned editors will keep it from degrading into a collection of fan sites.

Please think of this the next time you are considering the notability of an article.

LeilaniLad (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My approach to AfDs
Hello! Just to clarify to those with whom I have discussed AfDs today (sorry for copy and pasting, but my one hand is still injured), going with my AfD participation for today, in the instances in which I argued to delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, and Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran), I provided evidence that I conducted a search for sources on multiple venues and made efforts to still do whatever I could to improve the article just in the off-chance that during the AfDs sources are indeed found and the article now has a start on being improved. In other words, I did not just throw down another repetitive “vote.” In cases where others already provided appropriate policy shortcuts like WP:HOAX, I did not merely repeat what they wrote. Once somebody has already provided a policy or guideline reason for deletion or keeping, there is no need to restate it as anyone reading the discussion should see it. After all, in a discussion, not a vote, the participants should advance new arguments and ideas as the discussion progresses. Now in the two instances (you read right, so far I argued to delete three articles today versus only two keeps) in which I argued to keep, consider them successively. Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean was nominated as a non-notable book with four rapid delete votes claiming “no coverage” in secondary sources. Despite such assertions, KittyRainbow and I found SEVERAL sources including ones in which the article was given high reviews (Five Stars, Gold Award). I in turn used these sources to drastically revise the article by adding new sections and multiple references to an article only created four days ago anyway. And that is just with two of us conducting source searches in one day! So, here is an instance where you have a nom plus four delete votes with false claims and no evidence that searches for sources were even done to substantiate those claims only to have myself and another find a slew of sources with which I was able to significantly improve a four day old article. It frustrates me to no end to see so much of that in AfDs, i.e. editors just posting repetitive and false claims that could outnumber those keep arguments from editors who actually went out and found sources and spent time revising the article under question. Now, anyone approaching AfDs as a discussion would revisit his or her initial post taking into account the article’s development, but a minority of participants in AfDs ever do that. But my larger concern is still, why wouldn’t the nominators or initial delete voters just do what KittyRainbow and I did, i.e. look for sources and improve the article accordingly? Think how much would be accomplished, because then instead of KittyRainbow and I doing it here, we could be doing it to another article(s) without having to also post keep rationales in the AfD. The other AfD I argued to keep (Articles for deletion/1349 Woking Squadron) was based on the First pillar and I offered some suggestions after checking the web to see if sources suggest legitimacy of the topic. Anyway, I hope that helps illustrate where I am coming from. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 03:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

about the anti-cnn entry
sorry to interrupt, but have you carefully visted the site of www.anti-cnn.com? I understand that you have used the "notability" in your mind to tag this entry to be in need of improvement, but is it in ur mind that the action of attacking a country and its people with distorted facts and fabricated stories deserves no notability? Its notablity, as I have mentioned in the previous version I posted, lies in the break of people believing western media as fair media, and Chinese people began to seek truth from the grass root, on their own.

And I have long repsected WIKI for its advocation of free and open, but this time why things go to the opposite? The solid evidence on www.anti-cnn.com, which you may acquaint yourself with, does provide unchangable facts there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pargsos (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Smile


Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Daewoo Information Systems
Hello Black Kite, I just saw that you closed the Articles for deletion/Daewoo Information Systems debate a few days ago with the conclusion to delete. I have no real interest in the company or in editing its article, but a quick view of the final tally shows an almost 50-50 split in Keep and Delete, which would seem to imply a result of no consensus. If you were unhappy with the writing and COI issues, it can easily be reduced to a sentence stub with cats. Joshdboz (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do with it. Joshdboz (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Palestinophilia
Its almost as if you read my e-mail! :) -- Relata refero (disp.) 01:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. As and when you do get to read it, please let me know what you think. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice Work
Hi Black Kite, you are making some very good closes at AfD. Well done. Eusebeus (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

School block
I've just reverted some vandalism [|here], and I noticed that you had previously blocked the IP. I assume the block has been lifted/expired so I'm just leaving this note to let you know they're at it again. Trugster | Talk 12:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WG
Hi, I've posted some new proposals at the WG wiki and would appreciate everyone's input. Check also the Recent Changes there to see pages with new activity. Thanks, Elonka 06:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection
Well, looks like some folks asked me to step in as neutral 3rd party to try and get WP:NFCC unprotected. More work for me. ^^;;

Well, let's try the simple direct approach. If the page becomes unprotected, could you promise to not edit the page for a while (say 72 hours or so? And always ask someone else to do edits for you on talk?) I've just asked the same question of User:DCGeist just now. If you disagree, there's several other options that could work, this just happens to be the simplest. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I'm going to contact the page protector now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...
 Thank you... ...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;) EyeSerene talk 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BoxingWear
Time for the range block.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And he's back, adding to the ANI archive .MKil (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)MKil

Self-promotion
Please do not make such accusations against a good-faith user. I am following the guidelines. If you really question the relevancy of the books, then you should remove all of them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Melody Amber chess tournament
Hi Black Kite, Guido added his books again to the article. I don't know the procedures at EN.wiki to stop this. What could we do best? GijsvdL (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If these are good books about the tournament, they should maybe stay. The co-authors, John van der Wiel and John Nunn are well-known chess grandmasters. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did look in the history, and the ones above are the ones being edit-warred over. Nunn did some more later with someone else. Those are the ones being left in there. I am going to check what the official books are - if they are the official books, I hope someone will apologise for over-zealous enforcement (I know, I know, he could have provided evidence, but still). Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann and Moreschi
Since you removed the anon's comments, would you mind taking a look at the actual complaints from Second Issue? It does not seem any admin has taken any stance, only users who feel that civility is not an issue. KV(Talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I figured it was because it was closed, but I knew there was something with that IP seeing as it's only posts were on the ANI.  But, I still would really appreciate some admin looking at it, and it seems none have looked at it at all since the first incident, which was wildly ignored by Moreschi.  If you do not have the time, do you have any idea what admins might be likely to have the time to check it out? KV(Talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Archived delete debates
I am posting this on the talk pages of the editors (mostly admins.) who are keeping Archived delete debates up to date most frequently: Consistent with the recent rename of Deletion debates to Deletion discussions (largely to have a title that is more civil, hopefuilly encouraging a more civil tone in them), I would like to rename Archived delete debates to Archived delete discussions via a move. Any objections? Reply here, and hearing none I will let you know when complete so you can continue your good work of keeping the page up to date at its new location. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Move completed (all the other admins said ok to proceed). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"immediate"
Immediate is a bit strong but you did say "please". The edit summary was a reference to the inherent challenge of assuming good faith versus not feeding people when they troll. I never feed trolls and the intended implication was that I was agf giving you the benefit of the doubt about trolling and accepting the risk I might be feeding trolling. Perhaps this was unclear but I did include the word maybe. I hope you don't find the suggestion you might be trolling offensive but I suppose that since so many people use it differently I have to accept there was a risk you might. I was not wishing to offend or attack you but I would ask you to examine your behaviour. What is the point of your comment to WMC and why did you word it aggressively? These were a few days ago now. You could have raised the general issue of principle (which was an open question) but chose to go for the specifics. The "appear to be skewed" seemed rather polemic for the sake of it (I did review the deletions before I commented on AN/I) and WMC had not AFAICT been previously involved in the debate. This was discussed and JzG, John Smith and I all seemed to share a view on it. So, what is the positive outcome you are looking for? His edits were open to misinterpretation sure, but abuse of admin powers, no. --BozMo talk 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am quite prepared to apologise for the edit summary. Would that do? --BozMo talk 10:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done at ANI. Happy with wording? --BozMo talk 10:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck with the Allegations article. I decided to steer clear because there are people who take themselves rather seriously there and I was worried I might be tempted to wind them up :) ... --BozMo talk 10:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way see  there has been content creep on this policy which I (and I am sure WMC) hadn't noticed. You are right that as the policy now stands things are more  complicated but it looks to me as if the policy had some unauthorised changes. --BozMo talk 19:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume it wasn't me you were calling weird? Anyway have clarified ":TO be specific it is the change from "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove material such as this, to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. " going to Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to make changes for which there is clear consensus" that I find a strong change. Under the prior policy and admin who lock a page because of a content dispute and explained and discussed what they were doing could still try and improve the page in ways not related to the dispute causing the lock. This change removes this possibility. As I say, not bothered but rather there was a consensus. --BozMo talk 19:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)"

WTF?
There are some words I don't recognise ;  William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Laff !
Did you make your heading up:
 * "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, especially if they add completely unsourced trivia, and then try to claim it's notable"


 * (or something like that)

I love it! Inclusionist (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)