User talk:Black Kite/Archive 31

protected userpage
The IP is not used by The ProJo, but by Dallas-based Belo, the former parent of the ProJo. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does the Whois search say it is, then? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea. It says that for all Belo and A.H. Belo companies' IPs, though. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)
Hi, Black Kite. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

thank you
You did the right thing keeping those two articles about the oldest veterans, your very patriotic and respectful unlike some people who take it for granted and act like it doesnt even matter. 65.0.48.189 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Linear castle
I would say this, but a nicely judged close and always good to see closers include rationale. And humour. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you improve your incredibly poor manners
-   - This  violated this: WP:CIV 1 (d). Set an example. I mean, a good, adult example. Wait a minute, are you an adult? Either way, please act like one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - :I suggest you should yourself act as you propose others should. There exists debate about what should be, and what should not be, included in an encyclopedia. I don't see this as a breach of civility policy, merely an expression of personal preference. There are no personal attacks here. Rodhull andemu  01:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - ::E pur si muove! WP:CIV 1 (d). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - :::Etiquette reports are here; meanwhile, nobody cares about a closed discussion. Robust language should be expected here, as long as it doesn't cross the line. This was a perfectly valid expression of personal opinion, which did not cross the line into personal attacks. Please get used to it. Rodhull andemu  02:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - ::::And yet 1 (d) is, for some reason, still part of the WP:CIV policy instead of at WP:NPA, which is a separate policy (personal attacks are covered in 1 (b)). Other examples of perfectly valid expressions of personal opinion are listed at 1 (d). There is a purpose for closing admin comments, and it isn't to make statements similar to "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen". It's a bit odd to cite WP:STICK immediately after referring someone to WP:WQA. It's also odd to cite WP:STICK after an editor made two short comments, one in reply to you. It's also odd to say nobody cares about this when this discussion shows otherwise. And it's odd to ask someone to go to WP:WQA instead of bringing up a complaint directly with an editor. WP:CIV exists. Please get used to it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - :::::WP:BURO. Rodhull andemu  03:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - ::::::Haven't found where that applies here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

AN3
Could you please take a look at my reply in my AN3 thread about Mathsci? You closed the thread while I was in the process of typing a reply, and it looks like you may have based your decision on something Mathsci was saying there which was false. All four of my original diffs linked there were reverts; the fourth one was deleting three paragraphs from the article for the second time, reverting my adding it back after the first time he’d removed it. It seems very unfortunate that your decision there would have been the result of a false claim from Mathsci, and the fact that I replied to it six minutes too late. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if the answer is that your decision can’t be changed, I would still appreciate you getting back to me about this. As linked to in my report, I now count six reverts in 24 hours, and only the sixth of them was of material that’s clearly unhelpful. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I missed one there which you added after the report. I've now done what I should've done in the first place - fully protected the article for a week.  No doubt it's in the Wrong VersionTM but it's time the sparring took place on the talk page instead of the article history. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though this wasn’t the solution I had in mind, I guess it’s still helpful, so thanks.


 * If there ends up being more edit warring even after the page protection expires, should I file another AN3 report about it, or should I just contact you directly? I’d prefer the latter, if that’s an acceptable option. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Both would probably be better, in case I'm offline - I'm not on every day. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just curious
As to why you deleted Stars4Change's talkpage... Soxwon (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So am I ... just looking at that with a big "?" above my head at the moment. Given that it was only about 8 hours ago, you would've thought I'd have remembered doing that.  But ... Black Kite (t) (c) 06:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, they were blocked for sockpuppeteering Soxwon (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010, to which you were are a party, has been rejected. Full details are at the case page (which will be deleted after a reasonable time). If you have any queries, please contact a committee mediator or the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.) <


 * please note this does not suddenly mean the name is no longer disputed. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Hi, I've un-resolved this, please see my comments. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK
As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci again
A few days ago I talked to you here about my complaint regarding Mathsci violating 3RR on the Race and intelligence article. You protected the article for a week, and said here that when the article is unprotected it would not take much edit warring from an article regular to earn a block, regardless of 3RR. Even though this article hasn't been unprotected yet, I wanted to let you know that Mathsci is now edit warring on another related article: History of the race and intelligence controversy.

Here are the diffs of his recent reverts on this article:. I don't think any four of these reverts are within a 24-hour period, so he may not have violated the letter of 3RR, but he's certainly violating the spirit of it. What's more, the material he keeps inserting probably violates WP:BLP: this issue has been discussed at the BLP noticeboard here, and Jimbo Wales commented in the discussion saying that he does not think this type of material is allowable under BLP policy. The three users that Mathsci is edit warring against are the ones trying to follow Jimbo's advice about this. (Both about this specific claim, and about his general point that we can’t claim Arthur Jensen advocates something unless he’s specifically stated that he advocates it.)

The reason I haven't posted about this at AN3 is because at the same time that Mathsci has been edit warring against these users, he's also been making numerous personal attacks against them, which are now being discussed at AN/I here. Nobody other than Mathsci is being disruptive here, so I don't think page protection is necessary in this case. Could you please take a look at the diffs I've linked to here as well as the ones linked in the AN/I thread, and decide whether there's anything that ought to be done about this behavior from him? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While I was waiting for your response to this, he’s now reverted the article an eighth time: . His last four reverts have occurred within the space of just over 26 hours, so it looks like he may be gaming the system in order to avoid violating the letter of 3RR. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This was an addition of new content. On the other hand Captain Occam reverted this new content, claiming it was a BLP violation.(???) After that I rejigged the article, which anyway is 98% written by me, to allow a full neutral summary of the article before various shorter commentaries. In general on wikipedia, I have added only impeccably sourced content. Captain Occam is known for WP:CPUSH. Here are my first changes  and my second changes.  It seems to be Captain Occam  whose revert finger is trigger happy and who is gaming the system by not even bothering to read what editors are adding, or for that matter to check secondary sources. In claiming a BLP violation, as casually done here in an edit summary about new content from an academic textbook published by Springer Verlag, some kind of carefully reasoned case should have been made on the talk page rather than the impetuous edit summary of this diff. In this case, as Slrubenstein has written on the talk page of the article, there would appear to be 2 possibilities:
 * he has forgotten to check the secondary sources and give his carefully reasoned judgments as to why they are suspect
 * he is a vindictive edit-warrior
 * What he has removed contradicts multiple secondary sources as explained by at least two other expert editors on the talk page of the article. Captain Occam has shown no interest in engaging with them, despite his own own confidence in identifying a BLP violation in a standard text book on gifted education. Mathsci (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Log Deletion
Hello, I had a wikipedia account a long while ago that was indefinitely blocked, but because the username bears resemblance to someone's name, I would like some of the logs to be removed from wikipedia. The talk page was deleted a long time ago, but there are still some block logs and... remaining. Could you please delete that? I see that you are an admin. My username was akhamenehpour. I don't want wikipedia coming up when someone searches google for that username. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.194.122 (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Boring...
Predictably: Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_3 Yilloslime T C  02:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to inform you about the Deletion Review. I see that that was an error in procedure on my part. Glad to see that Yilloslime has done my job for me. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia–Indonesia relations
Can you please userfy Macedonia–Indonesia relations for me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, when you userfied the page you didn't include any sort of attribution history which makes it a copyright problem. See WP:COPYWITHIN and a related case at Deletion review/Log/2010 May 31 VernoWhitney (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right - I felt that moving the page and its history to a userspace whilst it is still undergoing a DRV shouldn't really be done. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see how that would be a problem, I'm just saying that what you've done is also a problem that needs fixing. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. If RAN works on his userspace copy and the article gets re-instated at any point, we can just do a history merge.  Or I'm quite happy to move the attributed version to RAN's userspace if the DRV endorses the deletion anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So copyright violations are suddenly allowed so long as they're short term? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is technically a copyvio but if you can think of a better way of letting RAN have the text while the DRV is running I'd be happy to try it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only way to add attribution that occurs to me that can be done without messing with the deleted article is listing the authors on the talk page as mentioned at COPYWITHIN. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've copypasted the entire history onto the talkpage. That should suffice until the DRV closes. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 02:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for making sure that the right thing got done. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

BI, BI, BI....
Thank goodness there's no fighting over the usage of Irish Sea at any articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Black Kite - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you! 7 23:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This closure does of course not preclude a re-nomination at any point
When you close something with "This closure does of course not preclude a re-nomination at any point" doesn't that encourage someone who didn't get the results they wanted, to just nominate it again right away, so we have to waste time doing the same exact AFD over again? They can already renominate things, so no need to have that. Most people criticize others if they nominate it too soon, some having done it previously less than a day after the previous AFD ended in no consensus. Wouldn't you agree it'd be disruptive to nominate the same article again within a very short period of time, especially by those who didn't get their way that time around?  D r e a m Focus  03:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for unblocking me. It means everything to me. Wikikaye 10:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Chirco evading block with 3rd account
Hello. You blocked User:ChircoN as a sock of User:Nick Chirco, and restarted the 24-hour block on Nick Chirco. That apparently inspired the fellow to set up another account: User:Chirco and the man. I've already added a notice to WP:ANI, but I thought you might want to be notified. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * New sock is blocked indef. Original account blocked indef. Instructions left on new sock to request unblock from primary, primary block marked as liftable once user agrees to stop creating accounts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Jclemens. talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Note
A file which you previously commented on has been nominated for deletion – ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► stannary parliament ─╢ 08:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For this. I wasn't necessarily WP:UNINVOLVED and felt I needed further eyes on the situation. Thanks for being there. --John (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why the aggressive behaviour on my talk page?
It's one session of out-of-the-way articles at issue. A faulty unlinking of a category or two at the bottom is hardly going to wreck them. All that is required is that I go back and fix them.

Your narky statement on my talk page is not appreciated. Tony  (talk)  08:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I got very stressed by what appears to me a political stunt by N-HH and Ckatz to try to lampoon me. It is unfortunate that ANI can be used in this way, attracting a series of partisans who want to have a little dig at me (Arthur Rubin, for one). All that happened was that I introduced a small technical glitch into the script, and because it has worked well for quite a while, failed to look down at the "See also" sections. I never dreamed it would unlink a cat. Now I know. And yes, I would have been far happier to have fixed the pages myself. The fact that someone else—apparently partisan and pointy—leaped in and reverted the pages, damaging them in some cases, as another editor pointed out on their talk page, shows why that section should not have been at ANI. I believe yet another editor has gone through re-doing the pages in question to clean up the overlinking, as I had done. I don't know why your comment was removed from my page and an invisible "discussion blanked" template inserted. Tony   (talk)  02:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be fair, Arthur Rubin has been quite restrained and factual. It's the continued haranguing Tony receives from NHH and Catz, plus the very aggressive sniping from Fences which I find troubling. Perhaps if Tony toned it down a couple of notches, NHH and Katz might reciprocate, but Fences' attacks were really uncalled for, and makes me suspect that Tony may have stepped on him in his previous incarnation. ;-) Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry
Hi BK, would you be willing to look at this 3RR report on Eugeneacurry? I've given up on Christ myth theory because of Eugene's reverting. He has now turned up at another article I've worked on, John Polkinghorne, and has started the same style of reverting there too. He always manages to escape blocks, which is why this continues. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:The-Pope
He isn't a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. He started the list of sockpuppets for the (Madden) guys at WT:NFL. Don't block him.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not going to block him, just the puppets. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you create this cat then?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To keep track of them in the event of an SPI. Frankly, he should really be blocked himself if he can't follow the rules, but ....  Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't understanding me. The sockpuppeteer is User:Albert Ramos Jr (Football Player). User:The-Pope is the editor who brought this sockfarm to my attention. He is not a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeteer.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand now. Sorry - the ANI was particularly unclear! Black Kite (t) (c) 19:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A sock?
Hi Black Kite and sorry for bothering you; however, I'm approacing you for you know the background of Meredith's murder article already. A new editor has just popped up (he intervened only once in the unsuccessful mediation attempt, that's what makes me hesitant) and started editing the article, pushing the POV that Amanda is innocent; I'm referring to. Since both Wikid77 and Zlykinskyja have been known to use socks, I'd like to know your opinion, before bringing this to WP:SPI. So, to cut to the chase, do you share my doubts? Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He do not delete my things is true what they said the page please. Att.

Articles for deletion/Vehicular homicide (Georgia)
Per your decision at Articles for deletion/Vehicular homicide (Georgia), I have merged the state articles to Vehicular homicide. It was not specified whether the state articles were to be deleted or redirected. Please advise. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Location (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A pointer
Hi, BK. Ron Ritzman's opened up this discussion, and invited me to participate. I've mentioned you by name in my reply—I don't think I've said anything you'd see as a criticism, but I thought that having mentioned you, I probably ought to point you to the conversation. :) Cheers— S Marshall  T/C 00:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Continued Problems Malke 2010: What to do?. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI and User talk:Zlykinskyja
Hello, Black Kite. As an administrator who has commented on this (currently unresolved) discussion at WP:ANI, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on suggestions that I have put forward regarding User talk:Zlykinskyja, which can be found here as part of a discussion on administrator EdJohnston's talk page. Thank you.  Super Mario  Man  21:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton
I noticed that you deleted the edit notice for this page. The main reason it was there was not to prevent vandalism completely, but to warn editors that such vandalism would be dealt with more severely than would have otherwise been the case. As you are aware, there has been much racist vandalism to this article (probably by a small number of individuals). Such vandalism should not be tolerated and should be dealt with by longer blocks than non-racist vandalism. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can keep a weather eye on changes to the article, so will see how things go for now. Should the racist vandalism reoccur, then I will reinstate the edit notice per reasons given above. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Uchitel
Are you sure about this AFD close? To be honest, I probably would have closed it as delete and would therefore be interested if you could expand upon your closing rationale. NW ( Talk ) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, as I was waiting to see if this went to DRV and so watchlisted BlackKite's talk page. You know, NW, when Coffee flubbed up the first AfD close, even he subtly admitted that it was a no consensus discussion.  But this time you'll see that folks like Robofish ("a reluctant keep") changed their vote from the first AfD.  Even Jeppiz, who strongly supported deletion at one point, was swaying a bit as part of the good faith debate that took place.--Milowent (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Put it this way, if it went to DRV, I wouldn't complain. I very nearly closed it as delete.  It's value to Wikipedia is practically nil, and if it was DRVd out of existence I wouldn't shed a tear.  The delete !votes were a bit thin as well, though, hence the NC. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Milowent: I commented in the last DRV and have read both AFDs fully. NW ( Talk ) 06:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Of all of the votes in that AFD, I found two to be the most compelling:
 * "Delete I ran trough the sources, and i would point out that most of them just mention her name in the passing. I would conclude that the 9/11 and nightclub waitress parts in the biography are little more then a filler; The article's themselves detail the nightclub and the 9/1 aftermath, not Rachel Uchitel. That leaves us with the Tiger Woods issue. I would argue that the issue itself is absolutely notable, but i would equally point out that it is only notable because of the involvement of tiger woods. Therefor i would say that a mention in tiger woods article is more then sufficient to explain the situation. To conclude: I would cite WP:BLP1E on this article, and i would point out that this article resembled a WP:COATRACK where all non notable coverage attempts to cover up the 1E issue. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)"
 * "Delete - nothing has changed since the last AFD. Nancy talk 12:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)"

I was wondering why you considered these two to not be of merit enough to close the AFD as delete. I was also hoping that you Would you consider modifying your close rather than sending the article to DRV. NW ( Talk ) 06:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit torn. I'd prefer to send it to DRV, but I suspect that the usual DRV-is-AFD-round-2 characters might turn a useful discussion into the usual borefest.  On the other hand, I don't like changing AfDs after they've finished - many interested editors may not notice what has happened.  Tricky one.  Let me have a think about it - if you want to DRV it in the meantime feel free. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excirial's claim that most of the sources "just mention her name in the passing" is completely wrong at worst, and just their interpretation at best. I don't understand where this creeping idea comes from that a closing admin can simply pick and choose a few votes and claim they represent "consensus".  Instead of a drama-creating DRV, or even worse a change of the close (that worked out so well for Coffee last time), since the close was no consensus with no prejudice to renomination, why not wait at least 60 days for cool down, and then renominate if so desired.--Milowent (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If we couldn't evaluate !votes to their value then there would be no point in admins closing AfDs, as we'd just be !vote-counting. If I find an AfD with ten !votes that say "Delete - not notable", and one vote that explain why the article is notable with reference to policy, then I will close it as Keep, and any admin that doesn't isn't doing their job.  The other issue is that this is a BLP, which raises the issue of what a NC close should've defaulted to. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At Perennial_proposals, the proposal that no consensus BLPs should default to delete is on the "list of things that are frequently proposed on Wikipedia, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past." As to evaluation of votes, I agree it has to happen and should happen, but there is some limit inherent in that.  E.g., "Keep per WP:HOTTIE" is not a serious vote; you discount it.  And "Delete because this is poorly written" is a bad rationale.  The example you give of the 10 "Delete - not notable" votes and one well-reasoned keep vote is a hypothetical that is extremely unlikely, because we do operate on consensus.  Thus, a few of those delete voters are going to say something about why its not notable and will likely respond to the keep rationale once they see it.  Some may change their !vote.  No doubt, its harder to delete articles under our consensus system than under a vote system, because "consensus" is harder to reach than a strict majority.  When there are multiple editors disagreeing over whether WP:N is met based on whether the coverage is significant enough, or whether its a true BLP1E situation or not, that is a classic no consensus situation.--Milowent (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that there are plenty of sources, some of which are entirely on the subject, "not notable" is clearly wrong per WP:N. BLP1E or NOTNEWS deletion votes can't be immediately dismissed as they have a leg to stand on.  But I don't think there is any way those views got consensus in the discussion, nor is there a black-and-white case to be made that they apply (coverage has been over a sustained period for at least 3 different reasons).  Is is sustained enough and were those different reasons in enough depth?  That's for the discussion to figure out, and clearly there was no consensus. Hobit (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously I gave a hypothetical example, but I've closed many AfDs against the "consensus" in the past, and all resulting DRVs - bar one - have been upheld. So I believe that one needs to be really careful about claiming that we work on a consensus basis.  We don't. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do we work on then? I thought it was consensus and "rough consensus," which means baloney !votes can be excluded, but admins don't cross over the line into a simple merits judge.  We could have a set up that way.  People could nominate articles and present their case for deletion.  Someone inclined to keep (or an editor appointed from the Article Rescue Squadron as a public defender to defend the "due process rights" of the article if nobody steps up), would provide a defense argument.  Then other editors could offer "amicus" views as to either side, but the number of amicus opinions would have no weight.  Then, the closing admin would review the case after 7 days and make a judgment, subject to DRV review for abuse of discretion.  I think some admins would prefer such a system.--Milowent (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggested just such a system at Wikipedia talk:Deletion advocacy. Time to revive and edit that proposal? Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't do it on my behalf! I think the requirement of rough consensus keeps things much more civil than they would be without it.  If we only needed to persuade an admin like a judge, we'd all be lawyers, and ... I'll avoid BLP violations with comments about lawyers.--Milowent (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't clear enough... I don't support replacing individual arguments at AfD with collaborative summaries of the arguments for keep, delete, merge etc., but I think they could be a useful addition to the process in some long AfDs. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to follow-up here. Did you decide on what you are going to do? Either overturning your close or sending the matter to DRV would be fine with me. NW ( Talk ) 15:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I've let that slip. DRV, I think. I'll do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

blocking of 98.140.77.17
Why was he only blocked for 12 hours? He was still vandalizing while the request was being processed. It should be at the very least 24 hrs, in my opinion anyway. JDDJS (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a dynamic IP. 12 hours is preventative enough.  If vandalism continues, the blocks can be ramped up. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. --JDDJS (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Are you really telling me that I can be blocked for reverting BLP violations? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Replacing sourced material with unsourced material is not a BLP violation? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But are they true? Without a source, who knows?  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I disagree, but I'll try to remember that. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply
That's ridiculous. I'm sorry, but that rule holds up the insertion of correct information. Eve is billed from Denver, Colorado and that video proves it. What am I supposed to do? A video is the only way to prove that the current edit (Los Angeles) is wrong. RICK ME DOODLE   YOU DOODLE  07:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note of thanks for the alternative. I've now done that and used four episodes where Eve wrestled, including the one in the video I previously linked (that was in fact the night Eve beat Maryse for the Diva's title). RICK ME DOODLE   YOU DOODLE  08:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

McYel
The thread has been removed with an editor telling me oversight is required. I'm still conflicted. What do you think?&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like the SWAT team arrived.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:)
This made me laugh. Reyk YO!  09:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Merged articles into List of V (2009 TV series) episodes
Did you actually move any content into the destination article? From what I can tell none of the novel information actually made it into the article. Two sentances aren't a plot summary, and neither are 100 sentances. I agree that the plot summaries were way too detailed but now they are so barren that you really don't know what happens in each episode. It seems like you just redirected the old pages and did nothing with their content as a consolation for not being able to delete them outright. Lime in the Coconut  16:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't mean to imply that 100 sentances were insufficient but too many entirely! I may go back and add a few more sentances but I promise to keep it concise. Lime in the Coconut   16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... well
Is there some particular reason why you would warn me and not warn Jack Merridew? He is the one who is fighting more than one editor to retain his personal preference of table formatting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And if by saying "even if the IP isn't you", are you insinuating that it might be? If so, file the SPI. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying "even if it isn't you", which implies I'm looking at the edit-warring as if the IP isn't you. I wouldn't have thought that would be too difficult to understand?  If I'd had any evidence the IP was you, then you wouldn't be able to edit currently. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You are perfectly free to try to find any connection between me and the IP, but none exists. And yet, Jack is doing the same thing and that is acceptable enough to you not to mention it to him? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
This may be a bit belated, but I am glad to see you unretired. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What 2/0 said. On a separate note (about the British Isles proposal), please see my comment here - as proposer, you may want to add something to that effect to the proposal so that procedural issues are dealt with before it is enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

BI
We may have a 'new' problematic editor, judging from these. RashersTierney (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This edit appears like an attempt to continue an edit war by other means, certainly within the spirit of WP:GAME. RashersTierney (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your "British Isles" proposal
Would you be willing to modify your proposal to avoid "naming names"? In other words, we'd start with a list of zero editors, and add to it as needed, instead of starting with HighKing and LevenBoy. I gather that as the proposal is currently worded "the Irish camp" see it as a "pro-British" proposal (which I strongly disagree with, but I'm keen to maintain momentum for the proposal). TFOWR 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How on earth is it "pro-British". There is one named editor from each "side" at the moment (and in fact I've warned another pro-BI editor today). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. It does seem to be the stumbling block for those editors opposed to "British Isles", however. I'm somewhat surprised that one side seem quite keen, and the other side seem quite opposed, though that's maybe my own naïveté at work... TFOW<b style="color:#F00">R</b> 18:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I've posted to ANI about the issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Request usification of article of mine you once deleted

 * I'd like to have Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_RE-TAKE usified to my user page, so I can then export it and import it and its talk page over at the proper wiki for this sort of thing.  D r e a m Focus  00:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2010_July_15
Hi Black Kite. Thanks for your support at my RfA! Could I get your input at ? Once again an editor is insisting on including a screenshot for identification on one of the episode articles I have written, and quite frankly I'm sick of arguing about it. The only mention of the scene in the article is "while trying to steal weapons and a gun fight ensues." Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Community has spoken, it seems
There seems to be a consensus for giving HK & LB a break from the British Isles thing. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've enacted the probation but I've left the HK/LB restriction for someone else to do or not do (it would arguably be an enforcement of the probation I enacted). Have left the bottom part of that discussion open so that the issue can be resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This is not true. There are moderate voices calling for calm and discussion for now instead of using punitive measures. See below for another example. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Moses
I see you commented about the AFD on Moses. One possible problem is that there is not clear instructions about the aftermath of AFDs. Is it "all edits must be destroyed, censored, and never appear again"? No. Is it "some material must be destroyed, censored, and never appear again"? No. It is "the material contained does not qualify for a separate article".

There is not a clear distinction between merge and delete. It is delete, not delete with total prohibition of any merge.

Basically, people have to be cooperative and edit in good faith. It is possible that some material may serve as inspiration to be added in other articles.

There is sometimes conflict over merge decisions. Sometimes, the article to which information is merged is controlled by an editor who refuses to accept the information and reverts it, thus making a mockery of the merge decision and making it effectively a delete decision.

I wish more people would be cooperative and act in good faith in Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are wrong. "Delete" means just that - material that is not suitable for Wikipedia. There is a very clear distinction between merge and delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear (to me) to be saying that delete means that not a single shred of the article may ever appear in any other article, not a single fact or phrase. Just total and complete destruction and delete?  May I respectfully refer you to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Expansion:_Indian_bid This article is being nominated for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_15#United_Nations_Security_Council_Expansion:_Indian_bid This is the deletion discussion. I tentatively support deletion.

However, some information about India's bid may be suitable for a foreign relations of India article, not complete destruction of all the material in the article.

WP:DELETE (deletion policy) does not require that all material in an article be removed from the Wikipedia project and may not appear in any article.

Please let me know if I mistakenly have misunderstood the way things are done in Wikipedia. Clearly, delete does not mean half of the article can automatically be merged. But total destruction is more than what delete is supposed to be. I seek not to fight you but seek to understand! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you're missing the point slightly, because there's a difference between small amounts of material and complete articles. No, delete doesn't mean that none of the material may ever appear in an article again - but with the Moses example, the editor had effectively merged huge verbatim chunks of the deleted article into it - which is a violation of policy.  Of course, if some material in a deleted article may usefully be used elsewhere, then that's fine. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It pains me when my English is so bad that people misunderstand me or anyone else. We are in complete agreement here. Deletion means deletion of the article, but selected facts may be put into other articles if pertinent. Keep means keep.

I think what has happened was that your ANI comments was misunderstood by me. You wrote

Just ensure it stays out of the article, that's a clear end run around a deletion discussion. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you meant "any of it" but now it seems to mean, based on our discussion, that you mean "not all of it or a substantial portion of it such that it is beyond good faith interpretation of the AFD".

Cheers. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Blackmailer_Paradox
Wow, that closure was unexpected. Appreciated. --Pgallert (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

BI Sanctions
Why has only half of the proposal been implemented? why are completely univolved editors being treated exactly the same way as someone like Highking who is partly to blame for this whole thing being an issue? How can only half of what people voted for be implemented? I would not have given my support if id have known we would be punishing non involved editors in exactly the same way as the editor to blame. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BW, this is one thing that's out of Black Kite's hands (and my hands, for that matter). Since Black Kite initiated the proposal, and I've been quite active in my support for it, we're both very much involved. Someone who isn't involved should will need to close the unclosed part of the proposal.
 * FWIW, however, I really don't think it matters that much. If HighKing (or LevenBoy) are disruptive, they'll be added to the list created by virtue of the second, closed, part of Black Kite's proposal. If they aren't disruptive, we all win ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 12:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A list they should already be on and that people voted for them to be on. I accept Black Kite cant take any action on the proposal, but BK has now said the whole thing is resolved and put it all into one of those hidden box things. So its unlikely any further action will be taken to implement the first half of the proposal. Seems wrong to be treating all editors exactly the same, when Highking is partly the reason why this is such an issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just let it rest BW, you're becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution. -- Snowded  TALK  13:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not edit warred over the British Isles thing. The whole issue is not high on my priority list, i certainly would not go around adding British Isles to lots of articles. All i have done in this whole dispute is question and oppose removal of British Isles in cases where i see no real reason for it to be removed. If its incorrectly used, ive supported its removal. Many of the things some agreed to have changed on the example page were not incorrect use, it was simply Highking coming forward with an article and saying something else could be said there instead. That is no way to resolve this problem, that is how to make the problem continue and get worse, not solve it. The way of solving the problem is clear. Highking must not remove British Isles from any article. If he finds an example of its clear misuse (The British Isles invaded Germany) then he should take it to the example page and i will happily support its removal too. But the example of the footballer of the year award was a good one, there was no need for its removal, highking just proposed a different term and got support. He can not be allowed to do that in hundreds of other cases. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is that a line has been drawn. If HK, LB or any other editor resume adding or removing BI without reasonable criteria for doing so, they can be added to the sanctions list.  Hopefully that threat will be enough to stop any more issues arising. If it is not, then we always have the alternative sanction of blocking, as I did with User:Triton Rocker. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Black Kite. What will the reasonable criteria be? Could it be agreement to the MoS currently under discussion when it is agreed and published? I am just a bit puzzled as a new user of Wikipedia as to who finally decides in content disputes like this what is reasonable. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasonable criteria would be that you've included a reliable source and explanation as to why the term is correct or incorrect. However, it would still be better to discuss at WT:BISE first.  However, I don't believe that anyone is going to be sanctioned for removing or adding (i.e. correcting) obviously incorrect usages. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User Highking has immediately removed the expression British Isles and it is disputed and I would say is a violation of the probation already. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No it isn't - see WT:GS/BI. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say he has removed the expression without without clear sourcing and justification, as is clear by the objections. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that fixing an error where "British Isles" was pipelinked to an article about the United Kingdom, and linking the actual title of a TV show correctly, are pretty justified. See my postings at the GS page. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be controversy about this - see the discussion on it at the BISE page. The problem is that the reference is to a book and a programme the contents of which none of us can demonstrate - including HK - so it could well be about more than just Britain and Ireland. I also don't understand why we are not required to raise any such deletes/adds on the relevant article page first - I thought that was part of the outcome of the ANI - is this latter point wrong? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but let's discuss it there. To be honest, the obvious way to get round this one if there's disagreement is not to link the title at all. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to speak out of turn, but surely the obvious thing to do is to enforce the agreement at the ANI - HK appears to have breached the decision that agreement must be sought at the article level - or at the BISE level - since he carried out the edits and then left comments about them at the latter. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Perhaps he believed it was as uncontroversial as I did. Let's see what he does. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be up to HighKing to unilaterally decide if it's uncontroversial enough to ignore the policy. The whole problem is the frustration perfectly reasonable editors feel on being given a large number of deletes out of the blue to consider as fait-accomplis - combine that with no edit-war and 1rr rules and you have a situation where (if you leave things this way with HK able to decide) you are in effect just green-lighting him to continue further bulk deletes without notice. Which I am sure he will return to after a brief lull. The real question now is if any admin is really prepared to get properly to grips with this issue. If not, then please don't suggest blocks for revert wars on them. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * James, perhaps this conversation on my Talk page explains a little better - perhaps you've seen it by now. --HighKing (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The pipelink idea [British Isles|Britain and Ireland] should've been acceptable for all. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GD, at least you're out. --HighKing (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

First test. Triton Rocker edits an article and inserts British Isles. As per our recent trip to AN/I and other discussions, this was reverted and posted to the SE page. I've checked the references and I cannot see support for his edits. But the breach is that LevenBoy has now reinserted British Isles into the article, without waiting 24 hours, and without justification or sourcing (thereby repeating some of TR's initial mistake). --HighKing (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)