User talk:Black Kite/Archive 35

FYI - Courtesy Notification
I have asked User:Jclemens for a second opinion as to issues related to your participation in the World Net Daily RSN. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which has been rendered on my talk page, although I suspect it might not be exactly what you were looking for. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Obi Muonelo
Could you restore Obi Muonelo, as he is now a professional basketball player?--TM 18:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, but it'll need sourcing quickly, or it'll be deleted as an unsourced BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring it, sourcing has been added.--TM 19:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Images at Pedro Álvares Cabral
One of the delegates at FAC suggested that I ask you if you might give a 3rd opinion on the image issue which is holding up the Pedro Álvares Cabral FAC. One image reviewer thinks the images are OK, and the other reviewer thinks they are not. We need another opinion before deciding whether to remove from the article the images still unresolved, and any help you would be able to give would be appreciated. &bull; Astynax talk 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Transformers
Please explain. I don't understand. Can you teach me how to do transformers articles on wikipedia? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Hmmm... Ok, so there is a discussion where the notable-ness for the article is discussed. Got it. Can you show me where there are current such discussions going on for the transformers? Thank you so much. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talkpage! Black Kite (t) (c) 01:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sailing at the 1932 Olympics
Can you advise what you meant by this edit? You provide no details at all!!! Nuttyrave (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that the files are non-free, I think this is acceptable at low resolution until public domain alternatives are available - at which point the article should use thos instead. Please tell. Nuttyrave (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, our policies say that excessive numbers of non-free files should not be used unless they pass all the criteria of WP:NFCC, notably WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. In the same way, we wouldn't use a non-free picture of a living person merely because no-one had provided a free one yet, unless it would be impossible to take a free photo of that person (say, Osama Bin Laden, for example). Black Kite (t) (c) 14:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and since all these files can be accessed from the la84foundation.org archive, links to these archives can be placed as references and the files removed ASAP. Nuttyrave (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Winter in America
I notified at the talk page about the edit concerning the media files. Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:LDSGAinfoList/Boyd K. Packer
If I tagged this for deletion under "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page" I did it in error. I only ment to tage Template:LDSGAinfoListBottom Can you undelete this page please? It is an actively used template.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 19:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. My mistake actually, it was in the CSD queue because it transcluded the CSD'd template and I assumed you'd tagged them both separately.  Sorry! Black Kite (t) (c) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal. I didn't realize that page used the template. I'm glad it back, and thank you for doing it so quickly.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 19:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just notices that the discussion page also needs to be undeleted.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 19:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Hi there Black Kite. You performed a previous block related to my comments in the above thread. Do you mind taking a look there and seeing whether you recognize anything? Thanks in advance for your time. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look at that. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember to delete...
... the actual article. See Petra Olli, it was moved during the AFD. Courcelles 03:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, cheers. That's the trouble with using the AFD closing script. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done it myself more than once. Usually just delete them when I see them... except, of course, when my name is in the closing statement. Courcelles 04:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Messages below here please
Hello Black Kite (cool name by the way), I recently joined the Nat'l Assoc. of Professional Women and was looking for some info. A previous article (Who's Who Scam) indicated that this association may be a type of phishing. When I hit the link for the Nat'l. Assoc. of Professional Women, there was a note that the article had been deleted. Can you tell me why it was deleted? As an autodiact, I love Wikipedia and will continue to support your efforts for as long as I am able!!

Irish893@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.168.255 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Afd of 100% Music
I noticed in refusing my speedy nomination of the above you mentioned something about it apparently making notability claims. Kindly note that my principal objection was that it was blatant promotion, and I believe it qualified well for that. Any claim that it was notable was secondary and, as you also suggest, illusory. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blatant promotion !? I really dont need insults like that you know. Do what you must with the page - I'm assuming it has been brought to your attention - as I submitted a complaint - regarding the slanderous and rascist comments made on it by a user (which you can easily discover by searching the history). The comments are now under investigation. If you trouble yourself to look at the official website of 100% Music - you'll find every word to be correct. If running the biggest free festival in the UK - and getting an album in to the Top 10 - do not qualify to be on Wiki (!!) - then please remove the page. I certainly will never bow down to cyber bullying. I've added a few inlines - but I dont see why I need to. Good day to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labeladder (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DRV
Hi, BK. Were you not notified of this?— S Marshall T/C 09:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Luchagors (album)
Upon saving the article, I see that the AfD was closed. I did not mean to revert the decision and I apologize for the mistake. However, I think that the article meets notability criteria...ha I've never undone an AfD like this before, I do not know what happens, but I would like the rewrite I made to be discussed on the subjects inclusion. Thank you - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of statistically superlative countries
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of statistically superlative countries. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Black Kite. There's a slightly grumpy note at the deletion review about talking to the closing admin first before DRV, so here I am. I only found out about this article a few minutes ago. Looking at the deletion discussion (and remembering that I haven't ever seen the page itself) my impression is that your closing did not give enough weight to the possibility of organising the material better, and of making clear criteria for inclusion and thus directly overcoming the problem of being "indiscriminate", which was your grounds for finding the deletion arguments more convincing. (I also think that "being interesting" does carry greater weight than you appeared to give it; as argued, this is the kind of information people often go to an encyclopedia for. The article apparently had high traffic.) Opinions on list articles do differ; I would have thought this at the very least would be a case for closing the debate as no decision, or a re-listing to get more input. In any case, is there a chance you could wikify it to my userspace so I can have a look? (I've just found the cache on the DRV page.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I was fully expecting it to go to DRV so I'm not surprised! I've commented in detail at the DRV page. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Levenboy
Normally I'd ask TFOWR but he's caught up in RL right now. Also posted on Cailil's Talk page. Just a heads up on this, this and the creation of this category. What to do? --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd give you a heads up...
--  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  22:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden is at it again
You may recall the thread at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648 where was shown to be disruptively removing cleanup tags. I've been sporadically monitoring his contributions, and while he stopped doing it for a few days after the ANI thread, it appears he has started testing the waters again yesterday. See where he not only removes the Multiple issues tag at the top of the article, but he also removes six Citation needed tags without adding any references. Also of note is the resulting discussion at Talk:Natural theology. He clearly has no intention of becoming a non-disruptive contributor to the project. You indicated your opinion at ANI that any further instances of disruptive cleanup tag removal should result in a block. Do you believe that this instance is enough evidence? (Note that I am also posting this at User talk:AniMate, who is another admin who commented that any future infractions should result in a block.) Thanks. Snotty Wong  express 16:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why am I unsurprised? Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I level 3 warned him. I really, really hope he takes that to heart. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorely tempted to block him myself, but considering my contentious involvement with the ARS it's probably a bad idea. AniMate  18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm. I'd just suggest taking it back to ANI the moment anything else happens. Or for JClemens to block him; he might take notice of that ... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) If it comes to it, let me do it. That should defuse the inclusionist/deletionist debate and focus the issue on user conduct. I really, really hope it doesn't come to that. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning on blocking, but this is really beyond the pale. The complaint about this was just archived at ANI with clear consensus that he needed to stop. He's all but thumbing his nose at the people who commented there. AniMate  19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason I was monitoring his contributions is because I've dealt with CW long enough to know that he was not going to change his behavior. I'm confident that JClemens' warning won't affect anything either, in the long term.  It might prevent him from removing tags for a week or maybe even a month, but I have serious doubts that he's going to make a 180 and stop being disruptive.  Snotty Wong   verbalize 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This speedy keep close was probably a bad idea as well, seeing as there are at least two editors arguing for deletion. AniMate  19:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, though since the article had been kept at AfD only a week ago, it could be argued that nominating it again was disruption (SK#2). I'm more bothered by the tag removal though.  Hopefully now he knows he's being watched, it'll stop. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly? Whoever thinks they're not being watched is naive.  That, and they haven't been to ANI in a while and seen how many irrelevant things previously aggreived folks can bring up... Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but I think you'd have to be spectacularly stupid to ignore an ANI and a Level 3 warning and carry on with the same behaviour ... though nothing surprises me round here any more :) Black Kite (t) (c) 21:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Stupid, or assured that the politics of the problem will exculpate you in the end. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that the ANI was pretty conclusive that such behaviour was disruptive, I doubt if the politics will matter; I agree however that is plainly ridiculous that myself and AniMate are considering ourselves "involved" because of the canvassing squadron stuff. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that you're not involved, since this incident has nothing to do with the ARS. It has to do with a user (who happens to be a member of the ARS) who has been clearly warned by the community that he is doing disruptive things, and has continued to do those things despite multiple warnings.  Snotty Wong   converse 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * INVOLVED seems to work more off of ABF than any truly rational evaluation, however, no matter to whom or by whom it is applied. Better to let me handle the blocking, should it come to that, or enlist DGG to do it. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed; however ludicrous it might be, any future block will stand far easier if it is performed by someone who no-one could claim as involved by any stretch of the imagination. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree with your last edit at ANI more. If anything, I should be blocked for having the temerity to bring this up. AniMate  19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why we bother when people are clearly untouchable. The DRV is equally hilarious, when the clueless have carte blanche to abuse others. It's a joke. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * methinks there's more than I'm seeing... as I'll have to go find some DRV...
 * anyways, I'm following the 'aircraft' thread of this disruption (and the redirect-resurrection;) and agree that this is not an ARS-issue, it's an editor-issue, and if folks like Jclemens and DGG (will have to see if he's opined...) take the lead on sorting this, it would serve the ARS well. Clean your house. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, opinion time. I'm really not liking the idea of blocking Warden for something he did last week, which wasn't clearly against policy, and which he claims to have done in good faith.  There really seem to be a couple of options: 1) warn him yet again for another deniable way that his detractors agree that he's gamed the system, or 2) penalize him in some way.  The problem with #2 is that participation is that I see no good way a block would be preventative, rather than punitive.  I'm tempted to write him a conduct-ban, abjuring him from doing anything remotely disruptive at AfDs, but I wonder how much of an exercise in futility that would be. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with jclemens on this one, though I think a contact ban would be subject to a great deal more scrutiny than a block. As a matter of fact, the likely benefit of doing anything concrete is so low that I would suggest everyone step back and let this slide. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, there's little else that we can do. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Huddling together in a corner and muttering into beards won't achieve anything as good as actually discussing issues at Village pump (policy). Not only do you have the unmentionable problems from OTRS to discuss, you have two concrete on-wiki problems and a proposal, with examples, on the table. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No more birthday bumps
On the subject of blanking things &hellip; Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Facepalm. I reverted it because it killed the refs and FR sections as well, and I'll fix it properly when I get a moment.  By the way, how did you know I had a beard? ;) Black Kite (t) (c) 13:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor
Hi there. Do you have time to please check this AiV report? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oluchi Onweagba
For information such as you are trying to add to the article, there must be reliable sources. Please try to find some, and remember that blogs and other self-published sources can never be taken as reliable sources in an article about a living person. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 07:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What made you contact me? This is cyber bullying. Please talk to ansaim. I tried to source it. Ansaim rejected this. Ansaim chose to just revert. An easy way to get a high edit count. I gave numerous sources. Still Ansaim was not pleased. It is very frustrating. amsain didnt try to help me find better source.

Ahh I see now hat it is amsaim's above post that made you contact me. Ansaim isnt giving you the full story. Please look at the Oluchi Onweagba edit history. I did try REPEATEDLY. Amsaim was never satisfied with the source. I then got frustrated, but still didnt loose my cool. I said if the sources I give arent good, why not find a better source instead of just reverting. Amsaim wasnt receptive, instead rudely told me if I want to edit I have to find a good source. That I found unfriendly and rude. I did find sources and amsaim would just repeatedly revert. This is why I think amsaim was just trying to get its edit count up. I gave multiple sources. The sources were blogs that had screencaps of the original articles because the original sources( dailymaily, various nigerian newspapers) don't have internet archives. I posted to amsaim's talk page b/c isnt that what is supposed to happen? We dialogue ans discuss things? Instead amsain is now calling that vandalism? I call it dialogue. Arent we supposed to dialogue before we edit? I thought so, but amsaim just reverts. And now you are the second person amsaim has got to threaten me. Why arent you warning amsain to contribute instead of just reverting?

LemonMonday
(Also posted at Cailil's Talk page) Despite this discussion at BISE, LemonBoy has immediately reverted. Reluctant as I am to take this to AN/I, is there any alternative? And if I take it to AN/I, is it right to also bring up the recent SPI case (at the time I was advised to let it ride because LB had "disappeared", but given what's going on now...) --HighKing (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You've just not got a clue, have you...
This indicates that a re-read of our blocking policy here at Wikipedia is well overdue. I usually agree with you, Black Kite, so this comes as a genuine disappointment. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► pikuach nefesh ─╢ 19:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TT, it's not the place for this argument. That's the point.  If there is a place for it, the talk page of the ACN would be it. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. That's helpful. However, could I maybe ask you to initiate that discussion there on my behalf, since I suspect that I'll have any content I put there immediately deleted? Thanks, ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Speaker ─╢ 19:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, initiate it yourself. If it's deleted, I'll certainly back you up.  You've got a point, there's no reason why it should be ignored. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll do that. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► assemblyman ─╢ 20:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Passport?
Is a passport actually required in order to qualify for arbcom committee membership? If not, may I go ahead and delete Giaco's just-as-inappropriate comment? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable ID is required. Apart from that, see my reply to TT above. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please give a simple YES or NO answer: Was Giacomo's post a valid point? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually difficult to do that. Since WP is an international website, there's no standard way of identifying to the Foundation, although most "foreign" (i.e. non-US) editors do choose their passport as a method of doing so. For US editors, there are more options available. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so some kind of ID is required, just not necessarily a passport. You see, Giano has such a negative view of admins and arbcom and such, I just assumed he was making a sarcastic comment. Clarification is needed on that page. I'll see what I can do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Madison Ivy
Hi Black Kite (t), can you explain to me why the result of the AfD is no consensus? There should stay Keep, because she passes WP:PORNBIO (nominations in different years). Anyway, thanks for not deleting the article. By the way, I started a deletion review, because this admin decided wrong several times. Greets--Hixteilchen (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic AfD
Your statement from here saying: "This may well be the AfD with the largest number of shockingly poor "Keep" votes ever,"

I'm quite certain that's inaccurate. I'm pretty sure there's been more stuff with even higher numbers of weak "Keep" votes. (For example, this.) Not really disagreeing with your decision (keep but rename), just that part of the closing statement you put.NotARealWord (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure there's been more, it was just that I read down this one thinking "nonsense" ... "irrelevant" ... "pointless comment" ... etc. To be fair, a lot of them appear to have been recruited off-wiki, so it's not surprising.  Having said that, if the few reasonable Keeps hadn't pointed out that the article was actually referenced, I'd have probably closed it as delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Running for Arbcom?
Are you considering running for Arbcom? I don't find 10 good choices in the 11 so far. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. A few others have emailed me to ask as well, but as I said to them, as you'll see from my contribs my editing time here is sporadic at best - a busy job and a young family take their toll! - and I don't really think I could give ArbCom the time it needs.  Perhaps in the future. Meanwhile, I don't see your name there? :) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've ticked off too many people and hold some contrarian views to actually be selected--I'm sure you still remember our first interaction. I also have a family and other obligations that have my ear.  Having said that, I still might throw my name in the ring if we don't get a couple more reasonable candidates. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence probably applies to me as well; closing dubious AfDs, mediating in the Ireland-related melee and mercilessly stripping articles of excessive non-free images don't make you many friends ... Black Kite (t) (c) 00:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support both of you for the record. I trust you both to let your views on inclusionism/deletionism (or however those are spelled) not overly color your work on the committee... Hobit (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of families
You may wish to also delete List of families (biology), the name to which the nominator for this AfD changed the nominated article shortly after he nominated it (as far as I can tell, this caused no confusion in the AfD). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Missed that, thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden again
See User talk:Jclemens. Snotty Wong  soliloquize 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've completed an RfC/U draft at User:Snottywong/RfC draft. If you get a chance, take a look and let me know if you have any comments.  Thanks.  Snotty Wong   spill the beans 21:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Close of mystery missile AfD
I am having a lot of trouble making sense of your close here. There were not all that many IP editors voting, maybe 25%, but you called this a "vast array." There was no discussion of vote canvassing, but you decided that "presumably" the IP editors must have been canvassed, without explanation. Isn't it more likely that they saw media or blog reports about the event, Googled it, and came to the Wiki article while it was up for deletion? Frankly, it looks to me like you just disagreed with the IP editors, so you invented a reason to discount their opinions. I don't think this close would stand a WP:DRV -- care to clarify your decision? TiC (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that they're IPs (or brand new account names, and in at least one case an established account), but none of them are making policy-based arguments. "It's notable", "Keep until the facts are known", "Debunking is encyclopedic", "Article should be kept", "People will flock to Wikipedia for information", "Notable incident", "This is a notable event", "Why would you delete this?" ... that's eight I discarded to begin with. Where the editors come from is irrelevant. Meanwhile, NOTNEWS and OR are not rebutted.  Take it to DRV by all means. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... i just came here to say that if i had realised how many of the Keep comments were by IP editors, i probably wouldn't have made the rescue effort that i did make. That doesn't mean i'm convinced that you (Black Kite) "interpreted the debate incorrectly" in closing it, either in the archived discussion or with your new process arguments here. On the other hand, i don't know if i'm motivated enough to get into details or get involved in a WP:DRV. There are more important things in life than daily launches of ultra-slow Chinese ICBM's disguised as passenger aeroplanes with the aim of scaring the US public. The fact that nobody has so far outed the KCBS cameraman as an MSS agent who infiltrated the rigorously qualified and vetted US mainstream media with the aim of creating a US-wide panic about fluffy water vapour makes deletion review even more complicated, especially when many of the pro-deletion wikipedians involved are also MSS agents wishing to delete the article in order to maintain the panic and conspiracy theories. Boud (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch
An editor has asked for a deletion review of November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Block needed
User talk:Ibmeui Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPN
Back in April, you were involved in a discussion about the article Pinoy_Big_Brother:_Teen_Clash_2010. Some editors said that there were BLP violations. There is now a discussion about that article at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard (BLPN). Please come to BLPN to say whether you think there are BLP violations in the article now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks
for keeping the vandals at bay. hope you are well.  T i a m u t talk 08:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI - unprotection
I just unprotected the above article, as I've indefinitely blocked one of the users in the dispute. If you disagree, feel free to revert it and/or even restore the version to the original protected version (so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety by allowing a different "wrong version"). Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nemacon Deletion
Hey, Just came across the Page you deleted called nemacon, would like to point out to you that this was not a (quote)"Once-off animé convention" is false. as of november 7th, the details for the 2011 con were announced (source: http://www.nemacon.org.uk/?p=87) and that the fact that " no reliable sources and more than half of the refs are dead links" are because of the fact our site has been changed very recently., i can supply you with all the links you would need to prove this.

the quote : "I'm not finding anything in the way of coverage by reliable, third-party source. So it fails" is showing ignorance by the person who wrote this, as the Cons organiser, i can understand that you wuld delete it from that, but surly a single google serch would of given the details to sort this matter out?

i hope to hear soon, and wish you a good day

james —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyboy999 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mathewignash
Thank you for also making a comment on his talk page. I first came across this issue when it was posted that one of the characters already dies, when the program does not have its official premiere. Then I found the exact same (Ctrl+F confirmed) piece of text describing the events of the two sneak peak episodes across any character who appeared in them. I have interacted with Mathewignash in the past, and even then he was not responsive.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 19:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh neat, it turns out that I had blocked him indef at one point.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 19:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch
Could I get a userfied version of November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch?Smallman12q (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Album cover preference
Hi, Due to your experience with images etc. I just wondered if you could clarify why there is a preference to use album covers without the parental advisory sticker? Is there a genuine policy/copyright reason or is it just pure preference? --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  14:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Stalking here, I would say that it's a preference. I don't think it impacts the fair use of the image one way or the other.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, agreed, though I suppose if there was something notable about the fact the album had a PA sticker it might be worth finding an image of one with it. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Everclear
Hi. I noticed you protected Everclear (alcohol). Any chance you could tag it as protected? It took me a while figure out why I couldn't edit it. NC just made it illegal. Thanks. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh
Your block of Colonel Warden was ridiculous, I've unblocked him. Find something useful to do with your tools instead of posturing. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would give you the admin barnstar for that re-block, but I find that statements of respect are better expressed in mere words. Excellent job for having the guts to do what very few others (certainly not me) would have. I doubt this will go to Arbcom at all because wheel-warring aside, anyone arguing that you did the wrong thing here would look like an idiot.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please please please don't let this end like it did for Tan; Wikipedia simply cannot lose two of its best Cut-through-the-bullshit Balls of Steel admins in the same year. The fact that you were the co-nom at F&W's RfA must be a particular kick in the teeth.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 02:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironic, isn't it? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reinstating the block of Colonel Warden! Something tells me you won't be de-sysopped. Although Fences and windows should be... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I love you dearly but I disagree with you reinstating the block. (better?)--Milowent • talkblp-r  16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's the sort of criticism I like (oddly enough, that's what I get from my wife, but ...) Black Kite (t) (c) 19:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question
Special:Contributions/180.216.90.183 is removing maintenance templates again. Should I rewarn and wait for accumulation of warnings to report again? --John KB (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, take it through the usual channels. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Black Kite, will do if necessary. --John KB (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden RFC/U
FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. Snotty Wong  gossip 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocks
These are all User:JarlaxleArtemis. These need to be blocked with email and talk page also blocked, because he will abuse those too if given the chance. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * kid's still about, I see. some people never grow up. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

inre this diff
I hope that the "new" editor(s) clamouring for a keep realize that Wikipedia requires more that being in internet databases or on other Wikipedias, and can then produce some sort of actual coverage. If the career is as long as asserted, and the actor as notable as claimed, surely there must be something, even if in Persian and offline. I predict a deletion, but appreciate Cirt giving them one last chance... specially in considering the difficulty they face meeting standards.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mani
Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Alikhezrayi. -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Rocky Augusta
A reference has been added in the AFD debate. If that was your only concern, perhaps you would like to reconsider your stance? Esteffect (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ab
Would you protect Template:Ab to prevent something like this from happening again? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for pointing that one out. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rappelz
Hello, please review your decision on this page. A consensus has not been reached and plenty of sources have been brought up to establish the notability of the subject. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The correct venue for a review of this is WP:DRV, as there is currently consensus to delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first step is always to try to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator in question, so this is what I did. Delrev is the next step. Thank you. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I will comment there later. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 15:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rappelz
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rappelz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Colfax (band)
Can you advise why this article was deleted? please email response and any possible recovery available. Staplesmcjebus (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI...
Please see as you were the blocking admin. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since that discussion was archived, I will summarize: a user you indefinitely blocked several months ago, User:BlueRobe, has returned with a new account, User:Uncensored Kiwi.  He denies being BlueRobe, but they are the same in every way.  I'm currently working on an SPI.  More importantly, I am wondering if there is a connection with User:Karmaisking, as the master account for both. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lilbadboy312
Hello. You're claiming to have blocked User:Lilbadboy312 indefinitely. However, it hasn't happened for 10 minutes. I'm notifying you now, in case you forgot to do it. Hey Mid  (contribs) 11:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that was odd. I definitely saw the "blocked" page when I clicked on the blocking form the first time.  Oh well, it's definitely done now. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now you have blocked him. I noticed a similiar case last month (admin forgot to block a user). Maybe you forgot to click on the block button because you made a ? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 11:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the block form doesn't work like that. I've actually forgotten to block a user before myself, but this time I did.  Presumably just a glitch in the Wikimedia software, I'd guess. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI about Lilbadboy312
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  15:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And now he's a supected sockmaster. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg Leon
Begging your pardon, but these are not images meant to show the living subject of the article - they are a;bum covers illustrating the subject of the article's work. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and you've now reverted 3 times. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock request
Sorry to disturb you, but can you block the 114.79.0.0/21 range (or at least the 114.79.1.0/24, 114.79.2.0/24, and 114.79.5.0/24 ranges)? The notorious IP-hopping Indonesian misinformation vandal, who deliberately introduces wrong info onto Digimon, telenovela, anime, Little League, and now NBC and CBS News related articles from different IP ranges, has used addresses from this range this past few weeks. Below are the addresses he has used just from the past few weeks alone:


 * - Has just used this address today.
 * - Has just used this address today.
 * - Has just used this address today.
 * - Has just used this address today.
 * - Has just used this address today.
 * - Has just used this address today.

Hoping for your quick and timely response to this message. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: I've also put this request to two other admins who are familiar with this vandal, as well as a third one, but they seem to be out right now. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. The range does extend further than that /21, although whether the vandal has any access to that I am unable to tell. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Squeakbox close
Good close. My own comment and the same conclusion, which you beat me to:

Cavalry asks what policy related reason applies here. The answer is that for whatever reasons, the community has agreed that it is unhappy with Squeakbox's paid editing activities. Perhaps it is okay with some users' paid editing and unhappy with others; if so Squeakbox is in the latter category of user. His paid editing is seen as undesirable and a source of repeated (though not world-shaking) concern. His paid editing issues have come up more than once. Concerns exist about the quality of his editing and that the financial incentive may play on that by giving an incentive to edit when he knows he should not. The resulting impact may cause negative project perceptions. While not all of Squeakbox's editing is a problem, the community evidently feels that it does not like or trust his paid editing. The feelings are sufficient that in the past he has been asked to avoid paid editing, agreed to do so, and gone back on the promise. That's a significant step and Squeakbox should have taken it seriously as a community request/concern. Blocks are used among other things to deter undesired editing behavior and encourage understanding of desired changes to Wikipedia behavior. Indefinite blocks are used to deter editing until a user "comes to the table" and reaches an agreement resolves a concern over their conduct (which can be done in minutes or hours if the will is there). I don't yet see enough evidence to warrant a ban (a very major step) but there is clearly a concern of the community sufficient to endorse an indefinite block, to obtain resolution via productive dialog or an agreement over his activities.

Thought you'd be interested. FT2 (Talk 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SqueakBox and WP:ANI
I don't know the history so I popped the unblock request on ANI having been unsure about your online status, though I think you were editing earlier. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks, I've been IRL for most of the day and am heading off for NY celebs shortly :) Black Kite (t) (c) 17:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Lear's Fool's RfA
I've re-read what I wrote to your oppose, and I realised how rude it sounded! No criticism of you (or Malleous) was meant. Thank you for responding positively! --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 03:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Iceland Icesave / Debt / Loan / Whatever page (yet again)
please don´t sneak in months later when you think nobody is looking and remove tags to support your own belief (which you statesd several times in polls in the discussion page.) this is very disrespectful to other editors and to wikipedia. also, if you´re going to make claims about templates, please read their pages first to make sure your claim is valid. patience please as another bill is currently underway in the icelandic parliament and we´ll see what comes of this as to whether there is, in fact, a debt! imho for someone so dedicated to wikipedia i expected a bit more professionalism. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * your point is irrelevant. as stated: the title IS disputed regardless as to whether the discussion is ongoing or not. the subject matter ITSELF is disputed (my mentioning of a new bill...) and there is no "there must be ongoing debate to justify a "disputed" tag" anywhere in the template, feel free to have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed_title and see that for yourself. again, changing the article because it suits what YOU personally think is pretty disrespectful to others.--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * you do indeed support the loan agreement option when posted but you were also heavily in favour of not changing the current title in all previous moves. is it perhaps time to re-ignite the debate after possibly sufficient water has flowed under the bridge and see if people have cooled down to the point of being able to discuss the issue properly this time?--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, later today (busy day) i´ll start a new section and message all the concerned people to get some fresh input. yes, it would be nice to put the dispute to bed (if possible) and not get annoyed with other people who probably also don´t want to get annoyed :)--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Theron White (Director,Producer)
Hi. You deleted this page twice already  and it  has again  been recreated. Just a suggestion, but perhaps salting and a shortish block might put this to  bed. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

time to sort out the icesave / debt repayment / loan agreement dispute finally
hey bk, this is the note that i´m sending to everyone i can find :)

hey there, this is just a bulk message inviting you to re-think the topic as was discussed more than 6 months ago and is still unresolved. feel free to jump here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Time_to_settle_the_title_dispute.3F and help figure out how we can end this conclusively this time. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)