User talk:Black Kite/Archive 22

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight
Hi Black Kite, I hope you don't mind but I've restored Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight as the candidate has now objected to its deletion.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for iTunes Originals
An editor has asked for a deletion review of iTunes Originals. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TheHYPO (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you restore the talk page for List of gamelan ensembles in the United States?
I saw that you restored the article for a second AfD. Can you restore the talk page as well? --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your block of User:Amicaveritas
Hi Black Kite, I notice you've blocked this user and I wanted to draw your attention to this discussion.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for unblocking the user.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report
As you were the administrator that blocked the IP in question, I thought I should let you know I have created Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Rain Tapes
Thanks for letting me know about this, cheers  Paul75 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppetry
Hi Black Kite. Thanks very much for the work you've been putting into examining the effects of the JamesBurns sock puppetry. Sincerely, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I kinda hate to bring it up, but there might be some assessments that I disagree with you about. For example, in this edit regarding Articles for deletion/Making Time. I think that discussion process was severely compromised by the sock puppetry and needs a new AfD. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, restore it. I did a quick look for sources in my library's database and there are plenty that could be added to that article. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you think we should putting some effort towards notifying the deleting admins? Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had closed a discussion that had been compromised by sock puppetry, I would want to know about it—for the learning experience, really. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you and M. Erik could deal with some of the remaining AFD discussions on M. Erik's list. I've just discovered something that is going to take some time. However, please avoid, for now, any AFD discussions that include contributions from Megan1967 and Leanne. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever find yourself wondering ...
Do things like that 3RR report come about because the editor has that much chutzpah or because the editor really doesn't understand what's happening?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Bugs Bunny images from the page Bugs Bunny
Usually when images are removed from the page to which I have contributed, they are long deleted, due to the lack of time or that I am preoccupied with other things. I've never given a thought to reupload the images again, or chase or follow why they were deleted up on them as they may have been deleted in good faith or for what other reason other editors/users have decided on. It would be easy to reinstate the images back, but the result would probably be as you state on your page an edit war, which also I feel, is pointless. The same might happen in the future, with other users and administrators, too or if someone reinstates the images, I suppose. What I am interested is the unpredictability of Wikipedia, that some things are edited or uploaded, and others (image, video) deleted or removed. The reason I decided to upload the pictures on to Wikipedia, namely and, it might illustrate how Bugs Bunny was draw during the 1950s or 1960s. You disagree with that maybe. Certainly, when I first saw the page I thought it would be nice to show and provide a reference to how Bugs was draw in the 1950s. Most video of Looney Tunes can be viewed through U-Tube (where I have yet to have any motivation in viewing them), yet I realise but they may not be viewable due to the modem/DSL/LAN/WLAN or network due to cost or network admin reasons. The lack of the images might some other user to upload another non-free image again on the page too. It is frustrating to see one's contribution deleted, I must say. It would be nice one image could be reinstated to show a 1950s Bugs though, though I expressed my trepidation on this as Bugs Bunny is popular as I know as other person, and could be easily be removed from such pages I have put them on in the future. I hadn't realise too, there was a limit on the number of non-free images that could uploaded, even if it were used an adequate or appropriate manner. Any thoughts on this, on my talk page would be welcomed. Try0yrt (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It will be interesting to see how long the image will last on the page too. Try0yrt (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your recent comments. Ikip (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Deletion Squadron
Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Afd
Is this afd also sock-infected? I see some of the same names as in the gamelan afd, which you re-opened. Also in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, the nom User:Eugene2x (who is also the nom for the Chinese one) becomes User:GraYoshi2x halfway through and comments as both. Occuli (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mier account
Thought you might like to know that this user doesn't seem to have taken care of the rename, and is still editing the article that they were blocked for creating. Glass  Cobra  06:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A non-administrator is closing hordes of AFD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ron_Ritzman
 * Since he isn't an administrator, is it appropriate for him to roam about closing dozens of debates each day, simply because he felt like it? He ignored consensus on one article, which was three keep, one delete, and one redirect, and decided to redirect on his own.  Anyway, since he isn't an administrator, I don't think that is appropriate, especially with so many articles he has done this with.   D r e a m Focus  16:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there
We've never met before I don't think, so hi first. I mentioned your name at WP:ANI here and thought I should let you know. It's not for anything you've done wrong, but rather a comment you made with regard to an issue that was before you earlier. It seems to happening again. Thought you should know.  T i a m u t talk 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Topicban of User:CadenS
Hi - You are the admin that imposed the topic ban User:CadenS/topicban, from thread Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504. As Caden's mentor, I am asking if I need to post a thread at ANI to formally lift the ban as indicated in item #5, or does it expire after the last extension, which timed out at 00:00 1 May 2009 (today). What needs to be done by Caden, me, you, or anyone else? Thanks and I appreciate any help on this. — Becksguy (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Baronets
Hiya

I replied on my talk page to your question about baronets, but then I archived the whole page. The reply is at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_016.

The reason I archived everything is that I think I have had enough. I have been working through thousands of articles on British Members of Parliament, many of whom are baronets, disambiguating a pile of highly ambiguous names, and now find that it is apparently quite acceptable for Vintagekits to just wade in with a pile of threats and a barrage of abuse and move everything around without checking, while denouncing those who try to undo the mess as "disruptive" and a "disgrace".

I have not yet decided whether I am going to leave wikipedia, but I am considering it. I come here to put my energies into building an encyclopedia, and if the price of that is being dragged yet again into a sordid row with someone whose only interest in the subjects I work on is his hatred of them, then it's simply not fun. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Warriors (2010 film)
I've redirected the new entry to the relevant section on the old entry. It seems to make sense as a redirect (barely) because it may become a popular search term if the project goes ahead. But I'm not disputing the PROD; I agree it should not be a standalone article and I'd have PRODed it myself had I been familiar with WP:NFF. So if the redirect is disputed I'll be happy to PROD it again or take it to AfD. 9Nak (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Puven Pather
I am not impressed with his lengthy career as a stuntman, no matter what notable films he worked on... and I decry the long list of credits as a stunt performer as making the article look more important than it is... however, in visiting the article and removing most of the fluff, I did a search and found and sourced that he has won at least 2 awards for his first film. I am looking into more.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just sourced his winning multiple awards. Best New director for 2 films, The Shot and The Visitor, and 2 screenwriting awards for The Visitor... and the St Kilda Film Festival is not exactly small... just not top in this hemisphere. It was The Shot that went on festival tour. Still digging.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * Gotta head out for a couple hours. The assertions are stronger and much better sourced. Ain't through... but I've made a good start. What do you advise about the stuntwork? Unless he won some special award or received some special mention or write-up for it, I see it as a detriment to the article. Catch you in a while...  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARS
Notifying WP:ARS about content under deletion review is not WP:CANVASSing. The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Saint Pancake reliably sourced:
Salon.com

Entire paragraph in context:

"We do not see the infamous photograph of the keffiyeh-clad Corrie burning an "American flag" -- not a real flag, but a crude children's drawing of one -- at a demonstration about a month before her death. Nor do we see the torrent of exaggerated and often shocking verbal abuse to which Corrie was subjected, postmortem, on right-wing bulletin boards and Web sites. Corrie, who suffered massive internal injuries when she was either crushed by a bulldozer or buried under construction debris, was routinely dubbed "Saint Pancake" in such venues, or described as "terrorist-loving swine." (That's without getting into the grotesque sexual fantasies and elaborate conspiracy theories.)"

Would you be willing to restore Saint Pancake as a redirect to Rachel Corrie, now that it has been reliably sourced? Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI stuff
Um. Kay. I've either forgotten what that's all about or never knew. Either way, whatever, I trust your judgement and don't mind you removing my airheaded fluff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

NOT#PLOT
Hi Black Kite, I'd ask that you take a look at WP:POLICY. As I read it, text, new or old, that doesn't have consensus shouldn't be in policy as if it does. If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgment that editors disagree on the point. I think that "dubious" understates the issue and silence is probably the best way to go. As such, I'd ask that you revert your edit to WP:NOT or at least discuss it. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that opinion in direct opposition to WP:POLICY quoted above? Hobit (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for the given text yes? Per policy (above) it should not be asserted as though it were consensus.  Per WP:Policy consensus isn't needed to remove text (be silent on the issue).  Could you explain how you read that differently?  (minor note: I'm going off-line for a bit. Real life calls!) Hobit (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Largely agreed. We should certainly wait for a neutral close (and I've suggested we ask for one at this point).  But I still don't think WP:POLICY can be read in any way other than to say that stuff that doesn't have consensus shouldn't be policy. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ban request
Under the terms of Talk:Barack Obama/article probation, would you consider imposing a topic ban on him? (I am assuming this editor to be male based on the image displayed on his talk page.)

I would so so myself, but I have been involved in a content dispute at Talk:Barack Obama. That dispute is now resolved in spite of his contributions. I am concerned that he's exhibiting all the tendentious and disuptive behaviours that earned his first four blocks, in particular some (borderline?) BLP violations including allegations of corruption at the University of Chicago.

I am requesting a ban rather than a block because this editor has made edits to other articles. Of course, if you think I'm judging this guy too harshly, I would appreciate being told. I'm asking you, rather than posting at ANI, because I respect your judgment (and to avoid the drama there). S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

On forum shopping...
I'm sorry if you felt that my actions constituted forum shopping. Please review WP:SHOPPING and understand precisely what it is and is not. You raised issues of reliable sourcing, which I brought to WP:RS/N and BLP which I brough to WP:BLP/N. The fact that no one seems to be supporting your position in either venue might be a bit instructive. Pardon my presumption, but I think you may simply be too emotionally involved in this to be a dispassionate contributor. Please consider seeking another editor you trust to sift through arguments and sourcing with you; the worst they can do is point out some holes in my logic to you. Having such a person to counsel you on your approach and argumentation can't possibly be a bad thing, can it? Ideally, if things are getting too intense, you can ask them to be your "second" while you go off and enjoy life for a while. I'm not going to edit war over this, nor spring a surprise DRV on you during a wikibreak. I really want you to not feel pressured to stand alone against those who want to reference Saint Pancake in the article.

I'm absolutely sincere when I say I'm sorry for the emotional pain this apparently causes you. I'm not too worried about your WP:AGF lapses, since I know they stem from your strongly held belief system. There is no deadline, and I'm not going to revert your removal until and unless there's an unambiguous consensus to do so. Even then, I probably wouldn't do it myself. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny
I just resently uploaded a new Bugs Bunny image for the infobox. Will this be acceptable? Sarujo (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
FYI. rootology ( C )( T ) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Sadbuttrue92
Er, am I missing something? You blocked him for restoring the picture without the trolling links; was the picture itself part of the disruption? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your AN comment
You realize that under your rationale I'd have to sign as male? I'm a war veteran who prefers blue and used to park her Harley in places where cars wouldn't fit. Durova Charge! 20:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One Life to Live
Thanks for removing the "Title sequence" section in the One Life to Live article, I did so myself in the past and eventually gave up arguing the issue with the fans obsessed with such trivia. I believe we've interacted in the past on this image issue and assume you will have the article on your watchlist, but if not I suggest that you do, as the material will inevitably be restored and as an admin/"expert" on the topic you are better suited to deal with that than I am. Also, you should know that most or all of the soap opera articles noted in Template:US daytime soaps have similar sections (which are often used to defend the existence of each other, to my annoyance). Thanks! &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 22:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ofetenview = Madagascar Esape 2 Africa = TWH70
Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101: He was using a proxy, now blocked. Cheers. --Rrburke(talk) 13:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Referencing the DRV
I'd actually prefer if you dropped that line of argument from the RfC. It opens the door to document your past wheel warring over this issue, which I would rather not do. It's a pretty much weak argument on its face anyways, since 1) a redirect is not the article, 2) WP:CCC, and 3) the DRV specifically left the door open for review once sourcing changed.  I think the sum total of these arguments, while clearly favoring my position, is an unnecessary distraction.  I'd rather seek a gentleman's agreement to avoid that entire line of argumentation, but it's of course your prerogative to include it if you think it appropriate. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a compromise where I bring up and rebut the DRV itself, and you can rebut my rebuttal? I'd start with "This differs from the issue adjudicated at DRV because..." and you can focus on how you think my interpretation is flawed, leaving editor behavior out of it entirely and focusing on the arguments? I'm going to have to defend it as "not (primarily|solely) an attack" no matter which way we word it. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See the past discussion on my talk page--if "Saint Pancake" is an attack on anyone, it's primarily an attack on the media for what I'd term the "secular beatification" of Corrie. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, after having made a series of decisions to place herself there; nothing particularly heroic about her compared to thousands of other politically active youth.  The reason she becomes a worthy subject of numerous plays, as described by the article, is her untimely and gruesome death.  A good perspective for that sentiment is this article.  Most of the mentions of Corrie, if you're simply doing a literal Google search, are substantially shorter and less articulate. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A note to both of you. When filing this RfC we want to make sure that it is accessible to the people coming to comment. If we overwhelm them with a ton of evidence, no one is actually going to comment. In my experience, RfCs don't actually generate that much traffic, so we should try our hardest to make the issues as simple as possible to understand rather than writing four or five long paragraphs rehashing every debate that has gone on in that page or in the DRV. AniMate draw 22:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted and agreed. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Another one from the sock puppet list
Hi Black Kite. I've started going through more of the list, and found another one that you might not have noted was actually nominated by a sock puppet: Articles for deletion/List of music videos made in the 1960s. Although there was only one definite "keep" vote, there was also a "I-could-go-either-way" comment, and really just too many sock comments for us to be certain that the socks did not compromise this discussion. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic Monthly Article
There is both a copyright violation question and a AfD (which you placed) on the article? Shouldn't we resolve the (C) before we deal with the AfD? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite,

We have interacted before on other issues, and I could use an admin hand or advice, preferably before Google decides to update their index...

I posted this at WP:ANI and I got a rather odd reply/argument from User:Ironholds, which I discussed with him here. I don't agree with his conclusion and would greatly appreciate a second set of eyes, if you have the time.

Cheers and many thanks, pedrito  - talk  - 30.03.2009 12:53


 * Has been taken care of by another admin, albeit in a somewhat lenient way... Thanks anyway! pedrito  - talk  - 31.03.2009 06:11


 * Actually, I'd still be interested in a second opinion, if you have the time... Cheers and many thanks, pedrito  - talk  - 31.03.2009 08:30

WP:NOT
I put up a compromise proposal, then not only had it reverted with a rude message, but the person removed the dubious tag which extensive discussion agreed should be left up while things were ongoing, unless a compromise could be worked out. It was pretty hypocritical of him to go against consensus to tag it if it was going to remain as it was - something clearly agreed upon on the talk page while claiming a consensus that clearly does *not* exist for his preferred wording. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there was a discussion on the talk page that agreed it should be tagged until something could be done with it, what was supported by both sides. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

720°‎‎ image
Even though they are for two different products? MrKIA11 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sig line is opaque in email form
I saw you are taking a wikibreak. It has been for me, good interacting with you, learning from you. Take care, Peace, rkmlai (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect blocking of IP address
The IP address "70.146.192.0/18" has had been blocked with the notice of "Block evasion: User:Bambifan101 sock farm" but that is my current IP address. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am no longer blocked as this IP address. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not free, not an encyclopedia any more ...
Just noticed you had left (it's been a crazy couple of days). Really sorry to hear it. I hope the break is temporary and that you come back when you're ready. No doubt this place can be incredibly draining. All the best. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos
As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban
What is the status of User:Caden's topic ban on LGBT articles? --Moni3 (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust
As the last of several admins to have interacted with this chap, can I draw your attention to User:Thegoodlocust's recent unpleasant editing behaviour at Talk:Urban heat island ? I should perhaps say that I don't claim perfection there myself William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland
No problem - will wait. It would, however, be useful if we could get some involvement in debates from parties who are non-aligned with Northern Ireland issues - I am sick of only being able to debate with people who plaster their homepages with Irish Nationalist regalia. Jonto (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Vector Marketing
Hello, I understand that you have removed an important reference to the article Vector Marketing. I can independently verify that the blog is indeed a good source for those researching the company, as it contains information that is critical. Is there a way to incorporate the blog without it being a COI? Cutno (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request: Jamessouth
You blocked back in August 07 as a sockpuppet/SPA. He is now requesting to be unblocked, but I am unable to find any more information on the sockpuppetry (possibly the IP ?). Please comment on his talk page when you can. Thanks, --auburn pilot  talk  19:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Note on Gerald Walpin controversy
This also needs deleted, as part of that deletion discussion. Unitanode 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing
A well reasoned decision, if I may say so. I am sure it won't be universally accepted but IMHO a good call. – ukexpat (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin was created as a fork from the deleted article, so the page history is probably needed. snigbrook (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Séamus Coleman
Never heard such bollocks in all me life! Please explain your deletion because I cant fathom it!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivial me whole, a 700 word article purely on one player trivial?! Did you even look at the links I provided on the AfD including a link to say it is a fully professional league!? I didnt think AfD was a !vote and most of the "delete" "votes were based on it previously being deleted or wanting it to be a speedy delete which isnt really valid. Who can be arsed going to the hassle of DRV? I cant I'll tell ya that much. All I'll say is that it was a lazy delete - especially as you didnt even bother to reason it!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not convinced by the sources! Did you look at the multiple sources, inc RTE, Irish Indo and BBC that I provided. If playing 50 tiems and captaining one of the best teams in Ireland, playing in Europe and the Setanta Cup an representing your country at U-21 and U-23 level wasnt enough then this article states that the league is professional or this which states that The eircom League of Ireland is the professional football league of Ireland.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just found this from the BBC - a league that over the past several years transformed itself from a semi-professional league to a fully professional one.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you've set a very dangerous precedent by accepting this one passing mention as proof that the league is fully professional. Wider sourcing suggests that although some of the teams are or were fully professional, some always were part-time, and that some have since gone back to part-time status after experiencing financial problems. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So if they go part time does that mean that all players that played when they were fully pro are now non notable! nonsense!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have to point this out, but it seems you have been misinformed. The Irish League is not fully professional - the BBC have made a mistake in that article. Shamrock Rovers are well known to still be semi-professional. Please could you re-delete Séamus Coleman. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * VK has provided verifiable, reliable sources that state it is have you any to say it is not? BigDunc  Talk 13:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They will play one friendly in Ireland - expected to be against part-timers Shamrock who currently sit fourth in the Irish Premier Division and their new Tallaght Stadium holds just 3,500 fans. from The Telegraph. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this needs a discussion, probably at WT:FOOTY, rather than carrying on here. Then we can decide what to do about Coleman's article.  I'm a bit busy at the moment but will start one soon - if anyone wants to do it more quickly be my guest. Black Kite 13:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - let's see how that goes. If consensus is that the IPL is not fully professional, then I will re-delete Coleman's article per my original rationale. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 14:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Having discovered this (Shamrock Rovers' own website confirming that they are part-time), I think the issue has been conclusively answered. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  20:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria
Hi Black Kite. You seem to be an expert on Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, and I would like to know more about it (especially #8), but the information at Non-free content criteria is a bit unclear to me. Do you know if there's an article or essay with more information (maybe with a few examples)? Thanks,  The left orium  21:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  The left orium  21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Twenty20 Champions League
Thanks for protecting Twenty20 Champions League, I was just about to file a request. That user has now turned their attention to 2009 Twenty20 Champions League, can you keep an eye out and if necessary protect it. Thanks. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:NOTPLOT
Good morning. You recently made a cogent and articulate comment at WT:NOT on the topic of plot summaries. Would you consider joining the effort at Plot-only description of fictional works?

The goal is to more fully explain all the nuance and detail about dealing with plot summaries without bloating WP:NOT any more than it already is. In that regard, this page is intended to parallel WP:WINAD, a drill-down page which very successfully elaborates on and clarifies WP:NOTDICDEF.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Rossami (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yoghurt →Yogurt
I agree with you when you say that, "Submitting a new RM purely because the previous one didn't reach the conclusion that you wished is (a) a waste of everyone's time, and (b) borderline disruptive. ". However, this RM was not relisted "purely because the previous one didn't reach the conclusion that you wished", so I don't understand the relevance. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason for relisting, I think, was that the basis for reaching the conclusion that was reached was lacking, and indicated an ignoring of the arguments made. That's very different from merely disagreeing with the conclusion that was reached.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your follow-up on my talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy Is Preventative.
Your comment that I have "a track record of removing large sourced chunks of articles" has prompted some unregistered user to start stalking me. Let's set the record straight. You gave three examples. In the case of anti-Americanism, the "large sourced chunk" was two sentences. In the case of the Animal liberation article, it was three sentences. In both cases, I started discussions on the Talk pages, and gave my reasons. I'd like to know what standard stipulates that two and three sentence edits are "large chunks." (I do admit to wanting to delete other paragraphs of the anti-Americanism article, because I think a lot of it badly sourced and propaganda, but I haven't done that....) There is one real example in this 3-edit "track record" you produced. I removed a 25 KB section of the Jesus article because almost all of the section has been spun off into other articles, and the basic info is already summarized in another section. When you spin off a section into an article, you are supposed to remove "large chunks." Just announcing that I delete "large chunks", without context, makes it look like I'm vandalizing.

The upshot is that this guy is now following me around to other articles.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.117.1.254 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_liberation_movement#Criticism

Being more accurate in your comments about people might prevent this kind of stalking.... Noloop (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiltshift
It seems you unblocked Tiltshift on June 21, 2009 because s/he was going to request a new user name, but contributions under the name Tiltshift have continued.  -shirulashem (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, your protection...
...of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development has just made it impossible for non-admins to comment. And you are aware, I hope, that the edit-warring was between two admins, yeah? → ROUX   ₪  00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your recent comment on my talkpage. I agree with the points you made and I believe the situation has been resolved. I appreciate both your advice and your restraint. Doc  Tropics  18:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your suggestion at: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Dc76\talk 05:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility
As an admin you have a responsibility to discuss your administrative actions with good faith editors. You claimed a consensus for delete despite the discussion looking more like a no consensus or maybe a merge. Since that time the subject has continued to be in the news with very substantial coverage. Please correct your error in judgment. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.
Hello. I left some comments and questions for you at User_talk:ChildofMidnight. If you wish, you may answer and comment on my talk page. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology and a notice
Hi Black Kite, my apologies, but I mentioned a deletion you made at the bottom of this section of the workshop page at the Abd-William_M._Connolley arbitration case. I'm personally disinclined to oblige, but as the deleting admin you may want to be aware of Abd's request to undelete this page. Best, R. Baley (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lobster again...
has moved the page again. He is also deliberately modifying the redirects so that nobody can reverse his unilateral moves. Could I ask you to restore the pages again? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Or an alternate take on something
About this..another view is that the editor was removing many tendentious additions of so-called terrorism aimed at Jews, mostly added by Wikifan12345. Who believes that the source doesn't have to say it was terrorism, he can use his own judgement to decide whether it is terrorism. But that discussion was going nowhere fast.. O Fenian (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for misrepresenting my own POV and compromising Black Kite's assessment O Fenian. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, my only point was that whatever the POV of each side, without any actual currently occurring disruption going on then it was not an issue for WP:ANI. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 02:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with RFC
Hi Black Kite, I've never done an RFC before. I've commented on some, but I've never created one. I feel like somebody really ought to step up and do something about the person who we recently discussed on ANI. I'm leaving out his user name deliberately, but I'd appreciate some assistance. Here are a few more recent examples from what was on ANI:
 * His talk page Ian Stevenson POV pushers still have control, lying about content of sources to censor the majority view and push pseudoscientific WP:FRINGE beliefs as if they were normal, accepted science -- yeah, this is his talk page, but it shows his attitude. People who disagree with him are POV pushers who are lying.
 * This recent edit summary rv - admins have no special control over content more than any other editor -- and you only "trust" this admin because he agrees with you, admins on ANI board and elsewhere you totally ignore -- both I and the admin who nicely stopped in to help are idiots.
 * Undid .. unsourced claim, extremely unlikely to have any reliable source - (in Jekyll & Hyde) article) "extremely unlikely" is an opinion, which turns out to be wrong. Sources were extremely easy to find and the only question is whether the parallel was intended by the author. I didn't dig deep enough to know the answer to that.

As I said, I've never seen this editor add anything to Wikipedia. He just deletes. Yes, some of what he deletes is spam and junk. But he also deletes content that he doesn't care for, is extremely aggressive when people disagree with him, etc. He thinks his opinion is always right, as you can see in the Jekyll & Hyde deletion. In fact, there are many, many sources available online that make that claim, so he should have added a cite tag, not just deleted the content. I've also seen him delete something as "I don't believe this" when it was unquestionably true -- he just didn't know it and didn't make any effort to check. He's been blocked a number of times, has probably had edit wars and almost wars with thousands of other editors, and is almost always in some battle or another. I've been editing Wikipedia for 8 years. This editor is the only one that I personally have dealt with that is like this. It's extremely frustrating and the fact is that it hurts Wikipedia. I know of at least one other editor who recently decided to stop editing because of this bad editor (he sent me an email offline to say he was giving up).

What is the best way to do something about him? I'm contacting you solely because you happened by. Admin Ian13 also happened by and got mercilessly attacked, so I'll understand if you don't want to get involved. If you're not interested, or if you think another admin is best suited to handle this, I have no problem with you passing me on. Advice welcome.

Feel free to respond here. Thanks. RoyLeban (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been lengthy attempts at working with this guy on the Talk:Ambigram page, by me, admin Ian13, and at least one other poor guy who happened alone and got attacked. Now he's accusing me of Wikihounding him. You can see what he put on my Talk page and the response that I just added to his Talk page. RoyLeban (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavin.collins
I appreciate your speaking to Gavin.Collins about his unwarranted call for a block of AlbertHerring. Unfortunately, I do not think it will change Gavin’s views at all. Gavin is very firm in his opinions and interpretations of policies, and does not change them no matter how many people show him he is wrong. Gavin is still firmly convinced his actions were right and the correct interpretation of policy. 

This is nothing new as Requests for comment/Gavin.collins, Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2, Requests for mediation/Kender and the associated links clearly show. Edward321 (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Um, hell no. JMilburn has a habit of removing images from pages and then trying to delete them as "orphaned" while discussion is going on so that they cannot be readded if the discussion goes against him, as you can see on his talk page. As for the images being "orphaned" - that's a steaming pile, and you know it. Plus, you went and reverted the clarified rationale that I had added as well, as well as purposely adding false info to those image rationales (such as that they appeared on the List of Digimon species article).

At this point, I'm calling bullshit on this whole endeavor of yours, as it looks like nothing but massive abuse of the system. You won't listen to my responses to your claimed violations; fine, I won't readd the images, just please talk to Ned Scott. All I've asked is that you and JMilburn stop trying to game the system with the "orphaned image" nonsense. Again, I will continue to remove the "orphaned" tags until you and JMilburn discuss this matter with Ned Scott and it comes to a conclusion - you know damn well that it's dishonest to have the tags there while the discussion is still on. If you re add the tags again, I will report this to ANI. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you userfy MAPS please?
Thanks. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC) So there is definitely a reason for covering these tools on Wikipedia. It does not make sense, however, to keep descriptions of some simulation environments on Wikipedia while some are disallowed. There are independent reviews and comments as cited. Certainly these people mentioned were not paid to give their comments, just the opposite they are customers from big companies, hence their opinion should have some weight. Please can you relist the page or as Headbomb has suggested use the Terms MAPS instead. Thank you --RosaWeber (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Materials and Processes Simulations Thousands of researchers in industry, governmental and academic organizations around the world use modeling and simulation software as a productivity tool.

Niall Walsh
Completely disagree with you on that but hey ho! However, now that it is over I would like to draw this to your attention. I was going to bring it to ANI but as you are the closing admin on the AfD I thought I would raise it with you.

As far as I am cocerned it is a breach of canvassing. Sure he can raise the issue on the project but the messege he left it basically a rallying calling to !vote delete. And true to form there were four delete !votes within 24 hours of his post from regulars at the FOOTY Project. Really not impressed.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right so what going to happen here?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC
Re I've long stated on my userpage that the only way to stop the fair use arguments is to allow as much fair use as possible. I agree with what you said, 100%.

However, I am trying to have Emarsee's rollback privileges revoked until he can prove he can use them appropriately. I'm already having a hard time separating the fair use issue from his abuse of rollback issue. Your edit makes that more difficult :( I know your edit was well intended, but it's a separate issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would bet pretty good money that if we had a poll where the choices were "if it's legal to use fair use images, we should be permitted to do so" vs. "Being legal is just the first step, and we're trying to limit fair use usage per our Mission", a simple majority would choose the former. I'm tempted to start such a poll somewhere, if only to see how horrified I'd become :) Seriously, it would serve to show just how far off course we've become. If such a poll had a majority for the former, I think we'd need to vacate our EDP and start from scratch, using terms in it that only address U.S. fair use law considerations, and not any deliberately stricter considerations. As I note on my userpage, with over 300,000 copyrighted images we're the world's largest repository of copyrighted images. Not to worry though, we're a free content encyclopedia! --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

TB
Jeni ( talk ) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)