User talk:Black Kite/Archive 33

Edit warring at Bumblebee (other incarnations)
Might I suggest that possible moves of this article are discussed at the article talk page first. Otherwise it is possible that editors get blocked. There is a thread at WP:EAR about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See your talk, I was only performing a history merge, not moving the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

File:WikipediaConsensus.jpg
I lol'd :) NW ( Talk ) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion?
Sorry if I should have handled this another way, but could I get a second opinion on this? I feel this sort of comment is just going to divert the thread and as far as I'm aware, this was a proper refactoring.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bucharest maternity hospital explosion
FWiW, I personally would have nominate that article for AfD if all the facts were the same except the location. Anyway, I'd missed the "rename and refocus" suggestion, but I think it's a good idea. The incident would certainly be worthy of a mention in context as part of an article about the hospital and it's good you;re taking an interest. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't criticising those who !voted Delete, but hypothesising. Even if you'd AfDd a hypothetical US equivalent, I bet you it'd have been kept. After all, we've kept articles on news stories such as plane crashes where no-one was hurt and incompetent terrorist attacks :) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seal Cub Clubbing Club
I note that despite !keep votes citing sources, nobody cares enough to have added them to the article to justify the concerns raised over three years ago. Perhaps you'd care to expand your decision, lest I take it to WP:DRV in the absence of any reasoned rationale for keeping it. In short, the article is a shed, and should be improved or demolished but in its present form, does us no favours. Cheers. Rodhull andemu  23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy for it to go to DRV. I wasn't entirely happy about it myself, but it's either Keep or NC, and some pretty good sources were unearthed (I agree that it's irritating when people unearth good sources and don't add them). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW I added a rationale. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. I, for one, am not going to spend the effort to add sources, since I have plenty of other work to do here. Coming from that part of the world, I am aware of many other local bands who don't have articles here. However, I will keep an eye on it, and may insist on a strict interpretation of WP:V so as to delete any unsourced material if it isn't improved in short order- in my opinion, less well-known bands have a higher hurdle to leap than the Pink Floyds and Beatles but really, if they or their fans don't care sufficiently to put some effort in, I see no reason why we should. Rodhull  andemu  23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Gang Goes Jihad
I actually added the minimum amount of sourcing to establish notability to that article, which is what delete and redirect votes asked for. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you really deem that to be "significant coverage in reliable sources", though? The first one is practically just a plot summary and the second one is "this is a funny show and last night's episode was pretty good". Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say it just scrapes by. There was also more stuff, but I don't care about that show enough to do more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Carrots rather than sticks
Knowing how you feel about cruft and encyclopedic content, I figured you might be interested in adding a tuppence worth at Scoring. I have been musing on how to use wikicarrots rather than sticks to influence content development, which as we all know is at the whim of active contributors :) A few of us have been pondering this in discussing point allocation for the 2011 wikicup and whether introducing some form of multiplier for some types of articles might induce development of audited content in areas currently underrepresented or otherwise more "core" content. Essentially, I am trying to think of concrete categories that can't be gamed - so here's a challenge.

A group of articles that is:

(a) reasonably broad (say > 50 articles, preferably >100) (b) An underrepresented part of the 'pedia in terms of audited content (c) Must be concrete qualifying criteria (d) attempt to cover some "core" encyclopedic content and broad articles. not in-universe (e) not contain numbers of esoteric/minor articles

anyway, might be more cerebral than endless notability discussions. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting - just about to turn in for the night now, will have a look tomorrow. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm - that link .... Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WTF - oh - sorry, Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB
Hi BK. I agree with your general approach that PhanuelB should not be given a long leash, since he seems to find it hard to change. However, if you reach a position where you feel it is time to give him another block, should an uninvolved not do it? If you do it, then possibly the issue of whether you were acting as a judge in your own cause is likely to become part of any appeal he makes. --FormerIP (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry, I won't block him myself unless he starts attacking other editors again, it'll have to go back to ANI. I don't think I'm actually involved to be honest but it's better to be safe than sorry. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Article should be on Wikiversity, not Wikipedia
Hey, I just ran across this article, which seems more like it should be on Wikiversity. I was wondering if you could do something about it; it's got several tags ranging from as far back as Jan. '08. One part even reads. "Read how researchers define interpersonal communication and then complete the interactive activity and quiz at the end of this section." -- Zero TalkContribs  15:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Interpersonal communication
Hi. You deleted this as a copyvio, which it was, but (having come on it via a redlink) I was surprised how long its history was, and found that it has only been a copyvio since 26 July, when the previous text was completely replaced. So I have restored the previous (not very good) version and, observing a talk page comment that the article had gone from bad to worse, told the commenter to be of good cheer, because I have reverted it from worse back to bad. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Image problem
Would like a verification here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know  — Rlevse • Talk  • 10:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pls see new info there.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Transformers again...
WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements Looks like someone has taken what you started at a reasonable pace and accelerated it. I'm torn, because I don't want to work on them, but yet they're almost certainly at least notable enough to be merged into a list article somewhere, and deleting them isn't particularly helpful. Got any ideas on how to best reconstruct the articles into encyclopedic coverage, in light of the recently started deletion debates? Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got no particular beef with getting rid of the nonfree images... I just think we've moved into a point where both stub articles and redlinks seem to be deprecated--they seem to be viewed more as blights than invitations for expansion, which is why I favor list articles: it gives some information on things where notability is absent or neglected, and is a clear, extant spot to which more information can be added in the future.
 * Is there even a wikiproject who cares about transformers? I can see a list-of-lists approach to the labyrinthine franchises and their casts.  Maybe if we could talk the Doctor Who guys into it, they've come up with some best known methods for managing such chaos.... :-) Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I've noticed, there appears to be a small bunch of users who WP:OWN the articles. Having said that, one of them has just pointed out that one particular NN character does have a character list ... Articles_for_deletion/Thunderblast ... Black Kite (t) (c) 20:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The abuse of the tag will be the death of that Wikiproject one day, as well ... Black Kite (t) (c) 20:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I've said before, and I keep maintaining, that Article Rescue should be a core function, like Medcab or 3O, and not some inclusionist voting bloc, and naming it as a wikiproject was never helpful on that score.  Of course, I think that DGG's proposal to turn AfD into articles for DISCUSSION has a good chance of actually helping the situation, in that it might hopefully turn things away from the boolean tug-of-war that AfD has seemed to be.
 * But while the rescue tags can be dealt with or ignored, they're tactical solutions to individual articles, and often we end up with stupid results like fully explored and well-documented articles on minor aspects of a topic, just because they were rescued, while articles of higher importance languish in mediocrity because no one has tried to delete them, hence no effort has been expended to improve them. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunately a function of what people are capable of doing, though. It doesn't take much effort or intelligence to add a couple of refs to a fiction article, but with higher importance articles which require expertise, obviously a smaller subset of our editors are capable of understanding the articles, let alone fixing them. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

afd votes
How much of a problem are these ridiculous votes? Is it Admins who are paying attention to them? Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And we have relatively experienced editors arguing that our notability guidelines don't apply to everyone and can be ignored, eg at Articles for deletion/Evan Vaughan Anwyl. This is the problem, people just ignore the guidelines and !Vote their opinions, and we end up with no consensus defaulting to keep more and more. I sometimes wonder if there's a way to use the article incubator automatically in some cases, rather than default to keep all the time. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I think people would fight less hard to keep things from being deleted if alternatives to outright deletion (merging, redirecting, incubation, userification...) were used more. I'd love to see almost a moratorium on outright deletion of things of contested notability, where multiple good faith editors assert that the topic can be encyclopedic at some point, unless some other part of NOT (promotional, BLP, etc.) applied.  That might end up with a lot of crap in non-mainspace, but it might solve some of the acrimony and allow more energy to be focused on article improvement. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging is a good outcome if it results in a good merged article. The problem with the Transformers stuff (by the way, there are 318 - yes, three hundred and eighteen - articles on the subject, and in fact there are probably more that are categorised badly) is that merging a lot of unencyclopedic unsourced fancruft merely results in a big article of ... unsourced fancruft.  Some of those articles have sat there for five years or more, completely unsourced, with editors regularly shoving more and more trivia into them.  It needs tidying up.  That's not to say there aren't notable characters - of course there are - but even those are shockingly bad articles, and the amount of non-free violations is appalling.  We wouldn't be doing our job as editors of an encyclopedia if we didn't at least make an effort to clean it up a bit. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what had happened to the debate to fold in AfD, and merge discussions to an Articles for Discussion process. I feel it would be less polarising and more constructive as many many merges are underrevued. I love the cruft, but I concede copyvios are not good....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not confusing cruft with trivia. Cruft is fine if it's relevant, part of an article on a notable subject, and most importantly sourced.  Trivia, however ... to quote one I saw today "BotCon Malaysia 2007 featured a parking space which was reserved for Megatron" ... Black Kite (t) (c) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Call me a softie if you want, but I'd rather that all that trivia and cruft remain accessible in article histories--we don't need to present it to the public, but it was added in good faith by people who loved those topics. Somewhere, somehow, there may be diamonds in those, well, manure piles. There's a big disconnect between what's sourced and what is sourceable, and there are a lot of people who care about stuff... just not enough to source it well right now.  That might change in the future, who knows? Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My feelings are similar. I'd rather redirects than deletes for that reason. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't disagree in most cases; I have !voted Merge where I believe there is useful information (in fact I've just done that on Articles for deletion/Megatron (Beast Era) (2nd nomination), where my rationale further down the page is basically "why have four crap articles when you could have one really good one?" Black Kite (t) (c) 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding that IP 63.3.1.1, I've submitted WP:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for butting in on a conversation between such higly experienced editors, but is it really right to compare Evan Vaughan Anwyl with Transformers articles? I know he's a relatively obscure member of the Welsh nobility, but I find a living person with long historical ancestry to something fascinating (the last royal house of Wales) to be quite distinctly more notable than a manga or a cartoon character. Just a thought. The problem here is surely comparing like with like isn't it? There are zillions of equally minor nobles who have articles scattered through history-wiki-land. You probably need to make it clearer what you're doing if you intend to zap them all. If not, it can look like a biased deletion of something strongly felt amongst a minority. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please list all Transformer articles you nominated for deletion
Please list all Transformer articles you nominate for deletion at. This will make it easier to find for those still active on that Wikiproject.  D r e a m Focus  00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

More Transformers AfDs
You may be interested in these Transformers-related deletion discussions. -NotARealWord (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heatwave (Transformers)
 * Flamewar (Transformers)
 * Skullgrin
 * Cannonball (Transformers)
 * Brushguard
 * Check the delsort fictional elements--even Bumblebee (Transformers) is up for deletion now! Good grief... Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some people really need to check the articles before they nominate them. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * NotARealWord, that is canvassing! You can't contact just the editors who vote delete.   D r e a m Focus  22:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I think based on our conversations, I wouldn't consider Black Kite a partisan editor on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I would've checked the delsort lists anyway. However, DreamFocus is right, the OP shouldn't really be doing that. I'll have a word. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Block against User:Gregmm


Hello, you blocked this user for block evasion and referred him to unblock-en-l should he wish to appeal. He has, and I am unable to find anything in the history of the only page he has edited to suggest block evasion, and the template block message does not supply me with any information I can use to determine that block evasion actually happened. What was the context of this block? --Chris (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock email list
In the above block situation, I noticed that users without access to their talk pages can send email to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org to request an unblock. How does one get access to that list? As an admin, I suppose I should know this, but I don't. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a request on WP:AN for more admins and instructions on how to do this - that's when I joined up. I can't find it now though!  I suppose sending an email to the list is the best thing, though one of my talkpage stalkers might know better.  Anyone? Black Kite (t) (c) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l has a subscription option which could be it. pablo 14:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the trick. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediator, maybe?
Black Kite,

Would you be willing to have a discussion with User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? about his use of the PROD process? I've tried to provide direct and cordial feedback, but he's... unreceptive. Core of the discussion is that I've declined a ton of PRODs he's made (I'm guessing, 50+ over the last few months) of things that had obvious merge or redirect targets, and he's continued to do essentially the same thing. You can see more in our respective talk page histories, but he deletes most things from his talk page without archiving, so page history will be much more helpful. I'm thinking a bit of counsel from someone who is clearly NOT an inclusionist might help clarify the issues, which isn't retention vs. deletion, but summary vs. discussed deletions. Of course, if you think I'm off base, feel free to tell me so as well. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Perk10
Please take a look at Perk's talkpage as he now indicated that he would like the IP connection be removed from the history. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

banned user is back
Dear Administrator, I suspect that this banned user is back with a new sock account, he was banned months ago for abusing multiple accounts: Continued block evasion and edit warring, and now is reverting content at will, again without consensus and doing the same disrupting things. Could you check if he has a seemed IP to the blocked one? I'm sure it will mach, greetings Pietje96 (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with IP
Again, don't really know a lot of admins, so was wondering if you could help. This IP keeps reverting sourced content out of the Mayfield, KY article - most notable section blanking the entire section on the recent national news the city got for denying a Mosque and praising Jesus during the hearing (even though the article doesn't mention those juicy details). I've asked for sources and asked on the IP talk page to not remove sourced content, but have gotten no answer. Anyway we can get an IP block? Seems like its just one person. Hooper (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of controversial album art for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article List of controversial album art, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of controversial album art until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI
You have typed 'Kercher' here where you mean 'Sollecito'. pablo 20:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops - thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Helmuth Nyborg (Sørensen)
Per these sources (a danish news article and the scientists CV)the two Helmuth Nyborgs are the same person - it is not uncommon in Denmark to drop the last surname in non-official contexts.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case the articles need to be merged... I'll have a look. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sørensen was a patronym at one point, and the history of Denmark converting from patronyms to a system of by-names + patronyms and thence to surnames + patronyms or patronyms + surnames, with a whole lot of people trying to game the system to preserve the old patronymic way of doing things, which happened in the early 19th century, is not really adequately covered in the English Wikipedia. We don't have anything like da:Navnelov, for example.  Even that's just a skeleton explanation.  Uncle G (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy
I agree on the issue at ELP, but Radiopathy is obviously ignoring his 1RR once again. He is in an ongoing edit war on the Paul is dead page with another editor, and reverted their edits today multiple times. While I see you also disagree with the original poster, their edits certainly aren't vandalism or a BLP violation, or anything else that would entitle an editor on a 1RR to revert mutliple times. 70.254.43.255 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul is dead
I'm restoring the British spelling, so please allow time for that to take place. There are grammatical reasons to correct a sentence that has verbs in two tenses, as does the last sentence of the lead, so please do not revert the change there. The article failed the FA review because of the quality of its writing. In addition, I've made numerous corrections to cites to include author, correct article title, publisher and date per WIKI MOS guidelines.Parkwells (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As a user of good standing
Perhaps you could shed some light on this image issue? see here thanks --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  00:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Barry Wellman
User who attempted outing has been indeffed, AfD closed, Atama and myself have revdeleted all the references to the linking of the user and real name. And I've revdeleted this talkpage as well, just in case. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Canadian flags
Because you were involved in the deletion discussion of List of Canadian flags, please join the discussion at Talk:List of Canadian flags. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sirmilik National Park
Hi. I was wondering if you could improve the fauna/flora section by translating from German wiki/adding more sources? Dr.  Blofeld  11:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've no idea where you got the idea I'm fluent in German, but I'm not! I'm fairly good in French, but German ... nope, sorry! :) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Image removal on Amor_Prohibido_(song)
Hi Black Kite, I am AJona1992's mentor, and I was hoping you could help me and explain the rationale behind removing the music video image from Amor_Prohibido_(song). I see you put "failing NFCC" in the edit summary, but (apologies), the acronym escapes me. He was following the examples of similar pages that met GA standards and was working with User:Magiciandude to make the article reach GA standards (this wasnt one of the issues the reviewer brought up). Hoping you can take the time to explain what's wrong so I can properly explain it to my adoptee. The GA Review link is: Talk:Amor_Prohibido_(song)/GA1 Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 20:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A non-free image is only suitable in any article if it passes all ten criteria in WP:NFCC. Since the image is merely one of the artist and does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article, it fails WP:NFCC; and since the image can be replaced with a text description, it also fails WP:NFCC (replaceability).  It is standard practice only to include an image of a song video if the video itself is notable for style or content and this notability is referenced in the article.  If this is not the case, the image is merely decorative.  Non-free image usage is complex and quite often this is not something that GA reviewers reference in a review. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Much thanks for the clarification. I think the problem here is that the stylistic choices used in the video are notable (very surreal and very dreamlike, with clothing, colors and scenes changing in an almost dreamlike fashion). I think that's what AJona1992 was trying to portray (via the combination of the image and the text/review section). Is there a better way we can accomplish that? Perhaps an image that's a 4 screencap collage showing some of those surreal changes? And thanks again for taking the time to respond. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem there is that none of those stylistic intentions are mentioned in the prose. If the video has reliable sources stating that this was the director's intention, it's mentioned in the article and an image is required to illustrate that section, then there may be a case for the usage of the image, but as it stands the image is effectively only showing the artist sitting on a rock.  Regarding your suggestion, a 4-screencap collage would be four non-free usages which would be overuse (WP:NFCC) - it would definitely only have to be one image. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally, I checked all of the user's non-free contributions after the noticeboard entry - most of them were fine - I only removed two other images; check my contribs for those). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry for looking over the screenshot. It's my first time as a reviewer. Magiciandude (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness, don't worry about that - as I said, non-free image usage is complex at the best of times and sometimes it's not even clear to editors who work in that area all the time whether a usage is valid or not - you only have to look at some of the threads at WT:NFC to see that! Your best bet when reviewing is to ask if you're not sure or there are more than one or two non-free images in the article - drop a note at WT:NFC or on the talkpage of someone familiar with the policies - myself, User:Masem, User:J Milburn or User:CBM will help you out. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)It's mentioned to some extent: "Experimenting outside of the Tejano genre, Selena choose different styles of clothing, starting with color clothes and then later used her husband's shirts." - UGH... there was a bit more (including director mention, and I think a tiny bit about scenery), but we removed it as part of the suggestions from the reviewer. And I just noticed we have to do a little reword on that sentence as well.
 * I'll advise him that we either need to revisit the text to include more about that (the cite I think covers all of it, but I need to thoroughly review it to be sure) if we want to include the image, or we need to just give up on the image entirely. Thanks again, Robert / R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 21:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Magiciandude was right in that recommendation, btw. It was poorly worded and we were having problems making it coherent, so we removed it. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 21:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be honest I'd advise leaving it out for now. If you're going for GA, you'd run the risk of making the video section unduly long purely to source an image. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Much thanks to you and Magiciandude! He's fixing that one kinda awkward sentence right now and then I think we're done with it for now. Thanks again to both of you! R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 22:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken Zaretzky (new article in my userspace)
Hi Black Kite, Back in August Yesimhuman appealed the deletion of an article on Ken Zaretzky. The Administrators in the appeal upheld the deletion (based on notability) because the procedure had been followed correctly but suggested that a new article which better showcased Ken Zaretzky's notability in his field could (should?) be written.

You as part of the appeals process (I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't know all the correct terminology) had offered to yesimhuman to look over the new draft and make suggestions, give ideas, etc. Yesimhuman asked me to write the new article because he doesn't have confidence in his abilities as a writer. I have written a new article which is now in my userspace. Yesimhuman did help me with a lot of the facts on Ken Zaretzky. Could you please take a look at it and tell me if it is ready to submit to Wikipedia and if not please give me any ideas or suggestions you have to improve it? Please note that the category tags at the bottom of the article are intentionally misformatted so that the article won't show up in any categories until it is ready. Thank you! Youngshakespeara (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Just letting you that things have taken a turn for the more disruptive on the BISE page due to refusal on the part of some to get the point and a number of socks. I've spoken to TFOWR about adding ancilary sanctions here - if you have any ideas input would be very welcome-- Cailil  talk 21:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now at ANi - concerning placing two editors on civility parole and adding 3 lesser restrictions (civility parole, interaction bans and 1RR) into effect and adding a full topic ban with limited duration to the list of remedies at WP:GS/BI-- Cailil  talk 23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

New essay
Following recent debate over the non-free policy, I've started a new essay - Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions - to have something as a rebuttal for the most common misunderstandings. After starting the essay, I found User:BKNFCC/FAQ. If it's ok with you I'll incorporate some of the FAQ section in the new essay. PhilKnight (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? = Sock
Sigh. It's pretty frustrating to expend the effort to interact positively over a period of months with someone who can conservatively be called an ardent and combative deletionist... only to find that they were never playing by the rules to begin with. Given the past history of both inclusionist and deletionist radicals participating loudly and frequently at AfD only to be later unmasked as socks, do you think an exception to "Checkuser is not for fishing" is in order? That is, if someone rapidly starts participating widely in AfDs with what an uninvolved admin sees as a pattern of advocacy that is consistent with one or more indef'ed or banned editors, a protective/preventative checkuser may be requested. Frustrated and brainstorming here--your thoughts are welcome and appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a place we've been before (deletionist sock farms that is). CU isn't the be-all and end-all - main thing is keeping vigilant, and improving sourcing to sway more non-aligned editors (sigh). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye. To be honest, it's fairly obvious when they appear.  Perhaps we should be similarly vigilant though about established editors that spam AfD with votes with utterly negligiable rationales.  I couldn't possibly give you any examples of those, though :) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, people who never show any originality as !voters (and there have been plenty on both sides) may be annoying, but I don't get the feeling they actually affect the outcome all that much. At least we can presume that such one-note !voters are being sincere, even if their standards are not Wikipedia's. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that one went over my head - what happened in 1958...Man U plane crash...ummm...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it was a bit lateral, I'll email you :) Black Kite (t) (c) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am all ears. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with Articles for deletion/1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday) is it? Or a highly cynical reference to the European Economic Community? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, but I hadn't seen that AfD before - goodness me, there's some - I'll be nice - "interesting" rationales in that, on both sides! Black Kite (t) (c) 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was sure I had it! I want to know now, can you email me as well? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination spree
I was just curious, if you had any self-imposed limit on how many deletions in one day to the same wikiproject becomes impolite? I work 62 hours a week, go to college, and deal with a sick wife, to find your work. Well, I can't counter them, or research that many articles. You win. Congrats. I have to take some time off at the hospital for the week coming. Enjoy yourself. Mathewignash (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I haven't nominated anything for a while, and then I nominate a dozen articles? That is a self imposed limit - if you haven't noticed, there are hundreds of articles in the same state - are we supposed to ignore them? I'm sorry for your personal issues, but if these articles had been created properly in the first place, the question wouldn't arise. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd ask that you consider the impact in RL actions like this can have. I've never understood why we worry so much about BLP issues as being harmful to people but ignore the stress and harm done by trashing editor's  work here.  Yes, those articles likely don't belong here, but most people can't improve 12 articles in 7 days so even if they are supportable he's got an impossible task.  Harming real people is harming real people.  Hobit (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I was supposed to know about the editors RL issues before I nominated a very small percentage of the hundreds of sub-standard Transformers articles for deletion, was I? Come on Hobit, it's 12 articles, not 120.  How long does it take to find sources for 12 articles - especially as with some of these, there clearly aren't any? I should be irritated at your last sentence, but I think it's best if I just ignore it, I think. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, you couldn't know. But once you did you had options.  And sourcing 12 articles isn't trivial if sources are scarce and time is limited. I certainly don't mean to offend, but I will point out that tearing down things people put work into hurts.  Sometimes that needs to happen (both articles and things in real life) but being aware of the pain caused can be helpful. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what you're talking about; but many of these articles have been tagged for notability, trivia, plot summary, non-free image abuse and lots else for months (if not years) and nothing is ever done until the "delete" option is activated. I don't really know what else I can do - I mean, that selection of 12 articles is one initial letter (G) from one sub-category of the entire collection of TF articles.  At this rate cleaning them up would take years, because the creators don't seem to have any interest in doing it until deletion is threatened. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would pointed recognition help? I'm completely agreed, as I'm sure most are, that cleanup is preferable to deletion, and know from experience that it is far better to motivate volunteers with carrots than sticks. Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can think of any carrots that might help here, I'd seriously be glad to hear them! Black Kite (t) (c) 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:Mathewignash you are acting as if there is some conspiracy to delete all TF articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The socks in the area might lead a reasonable person to believe that. I certainly don't think Black Kite is part of that, but there has been a lot of AfD activity in that area recently.  Merging and creating lists would seem a more reasonable direction to go... Hobit (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless alot of mediocre TF articles have been tolerated for years and now inclusionists are crying its not fair articles are been deleted when all they present as sources are fanistes and other poor sources as evidence of notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If people took half the effort they spent participating in AfD's and just merged the stupid articles intelligently and thoughtfully into lists and/or sourcing the more notable among them, the problem would be a good bit closer to solved. I'm not exempting myself or any side from this critique--I wish the system rewarded editing more than advocacy, but it would be incorrect to say that it does. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the result of these AfDs then that's fine and dandy. The problem is that (a) tagging articles for improvement doesn't work - no-one ever does anything. (b) tagging them for merge is the same, and I've no idea where they should be merged (c) PRODding them - until recently - just resulted in someone removing the PROD. Perhaps it would be best if someone went through all the character articles and - apart from the obviously notable ones - just redirected them all to lists. The history would still be there to improve the article if necessary. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If some of these articles were merged Inclusionists would moan that certain articles shouldn't be merged. And the quality of the sources as evidence as justifiable notable is dubious at best. Can inclusionists who may be reading this really wish to tell sources such as these of a good quality.   . Do you really believe they are independent I don't because there are WP:FANSITES. Inclusionists use rubbish this like this as evidence like this and can't or won't find better evidence scream WP:ITEXISTS and wonder why their favourite character being nominated for deletion. They only have themselves to blame. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone can approve a bot or automated program to nominate all the transformers articles at once? Tedescoboy22 (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally gets (justifiably) opposed  -is a non-starter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The AfD page simply wouldn't cope with 500-1000 items in one go. And you'd have to write separate rationales for many of them as well.  This is the reason why I'm doing this in very small chunks with time allowed in between. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To those complaining about having not enough time to defend articles nominated for deletion:
 * 1) Some topics just couldn't possibly be notable, like Poison Bite. Trying to prevent their deletion was attempting the virtually impossible.
 * 2) Many (most?) of those articles have been around for quite a while, notability was not established during that time, as if the editors of those articles forgot about inclusion criteria until the AfDs came, and failed to find good sources when they had to. There might have been some topics which got deleted due to long-term negligence in regards to source-finding. (Energon (power source) is possibly one of them.)
 * 3) Wikipedia is a volunteer service, if you take too much time editing Wikipedia and it ruined your life, that was by your own choice. Sorry if I'm being rude, but that's how wikis work. -NotARealWord (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What people are ignoring in all of this is that someone put effort into sharing information on non-notable topics. It's one thing to delete vandalism, misinformation, or promotion, but all too often people looking to delete something list "fancruft" as if it were an intentional disruption or malevolent insertion.  It's neither.  It's the attempt of people who don't necessarily play "the wikipedia game" to add material they care about. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying it's intentional disruption; there have been cases like that, but this is an area - and it isn't the only one by a long way - that has a lot of fans who have decided to add every trivial detail of the franchise to Wikipedia. And of course, a lot of this was added before we guided new article editors as we do these days.  However, there isn't really a lot of excuse for experienced editors to keep adding more and more non-notable information even when their previous articles have been tagged for improvement and in some cases deleted.  Of course people are resistant to their work being deleted, but that doesn't mean we can shy away from cleaning it up to meet our standards if they won't do it themselves - and sadly the evidence is that in most cases they can't - or won't - do this. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not as if all the people who make the AfDs simply hate Transformers (maybe some of them do, but that won't win an argument for them), User:Khajidha and I are both experienced editors at TFWiki. Plus, I started a page about the TF fan club stories on TV Tropes. It's more that we'd like to get rid of articles that don't belong here in Wikipedia. WP isn't the only place to add information on the internet. NotARealWord (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't hate them at all. In fact, these discussions prompted me to go rummage around out in storage for two boxes of them which I hadn't looked at in probably 10 years or more.  All G1 era, and if I clean off the embedded dust and such, might bring in some nice eBay loot.  What I do hate is fanboy minutiae, which is what the vast, vast majority of these articles are.  How much time someone put into it is an empty argument, as the material can be easily transwikied to wikia and retained. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And where the material will probably languish in typo-ridden obscurity for everafter in some backwater. The beauty of wikipedia is its crossfertilisation and improvement of articles by editors passing by, and the more rigorous application of sourcing and formatting making a more polished-looking and comprehensive 'pedia. I prefer to have my knowledge base unified not pigeonholed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer that as well, but only for subject material that is deemed important, not for every scrip of information in existence. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) The problem with Transwikiing is that it fragments knowledge rather than collects it. It's one of my pet peeves with Wikipedia: perfectly good things (not attack/blp vio, copyvio, hoax, etc.) get shuffled off elsewhere... and there's no good way to get there from here.  At best we get a soft redirect, but only if the knowledge is moved to a Wikimedia project, or maybe an external link. Wikiquote, Wikispecies, etc. are all well and good, and I have no problem with fictional topics being dealt with in minutae on other wikis.  But if someone wants to look for Estelmo at Wikipedia, they should get a direct link to the information they're seeking.  Current deletion and interwiki connectivity practices preclude that. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If people try to look for stuff and they find that it isn't here, there's always Google and other search engines. NotARealWord (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the hundreds of NN character articles, either redirect the really trivial ones and merge the ones with some info, to character or overarching articles and have a link to TFwiki. I'm actually not opposed to soft redirects in some cases, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken Zaretzky (new article in my userspace)
Hi Black Kite, Back in August Yesimhuman appealed the deletion of an article on Ken Zaretzky. The Administrators in the appeal upheld the deletion (based on notability) because the procedure had been followed correctly but suggested that a new article which better showcased Ken Zaretzky's notability in his field could (should?) be written.

You as part of the appeals process (I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't know all the correct terminology) had offered to yesimhuman to look over the new draft and make suggestions, give ideas, etc. Yesimhuman asked me to write the new article because he doesn't have confidence in his abilities as a writer. I have written a new article which is now in my userspace. Yesimhuman did help me with a lot of the facts on Ken Zaretzky. Could you please take a look at it and tell me if it is ready to submit to Wikipedia and if not please give me any ideas or suggestions you have to improve it? Please note that the category tags at the bottom of the article are intentionally misformatted so that the article won't show up in any categories until it is ready. Thank you! Youngshakespeara (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks better to me, but I wouldn't like to say whether the subject is completely notable or not - your best idea is to open a new entry at WP:DRV pointing to your userspace draft so that others can decide. Best, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? = Sock
Sigh. It's pretty frustrating to expend the effort to interact positively over a period of months with someone who can conservatively be called an ardent and combative deletionist... only to find that they were never playing by the rules to begin with. Given the past history of both inclusionist and deletionist radicals participating loudly and frequently at AfD only to be later unmasked as socks, do you think an exception to "Checkuser is not for fishing" is in order? That is, if someone rapidly starts participating widely in AfDs with what an uninvolved admin sees as a pattern of advocacy that is consistent with one or more indef'ed or banned editors, a protective/preventative checkuser may be requested. Frustrated and brainstorming here--your thoughts are welcome and appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a place we've been before (deletionist sock farms that is). CU isn't the be-all and end-all - main thing is keeping vigilant, and improving sourcing to sway more non-aligned editors (sigh). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye. To be honest, it's fairly obvious when they appear.  Perhaps we should be similarly vigilant though about established editors that spam AfD with votes with utterly negligiable rationales.  I couldn't possibly give you any examples of those, though :) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, people who never show any originality as !voters (and there have been plenty on both sides) may be annoying, but I don't get the feeling they actually affect the outcome all that much. At least we can presume that such one-note !voters are being sincere, even if their standards are not Wikipedia's. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that one went over my head - what happened in 1958...Man U plane crash...ummm...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it was a bit lateral, I'll email you :) Black Kite (t) (c) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am all ears. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with Articles for deletion/1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday) is it? Or a highly cynical reference to the European Economic Community? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, but I hadn't seen that AfD before - goodness me, there's some - I'll be nice - "interesting" rationales in that, on both sides! Black Kite (t) (c) 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was sure I had it! I want to know now, can you email me as well? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)