User talk:Black Kite/Archive 39

Occupy Ashland
Hey, I voted in that as "procedural keep to decouple [Ashland from Eugene]", and I noticed you closed it as no consensus, partially because Ashland and Eugene shouldn't have been nominated together. Since there was no consensus, I created a 2nd AFD that's Ashland only. Hope that's OK.  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Jaya Ho
I don't normally do this, but I would like you to reconsider your closure of Articles for deletion/Jaya Ho. Since two people (including myself) changed their votes, I would say we certainly have a keep consensus. I know "no consensus" defaults to a keep anyway, but I don't think we should be sloppy about it. StAnselm (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we have 3 keeps, 2 for converting to a dab page (including the nominator), and 1 delete. I don't think No Consensus is unreasonable in this situation.  Black Kite (t)   03:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Steven Crowder deletion
Hi Black! I hope I can prevail upon you to restore this article to the Conservatism incubator here: WP:RIGHT/I. The Incubator loves articles that have a lot of editor passion but not a lot of notability! – Lionel (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Steven Crowder. Black Kite (t)   05:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for all your help, much appreciated, i now understand the basic mechanics of navigation :)

However, that paticular design looked a little odd when i put it onto my page, do you know of any better navigation designs? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 19:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Try User page design center/Menus and subpages? Black Kite (t)   19:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes! thats exactly what im looking for, thank you! :) User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 17:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks
I don't know why you seem to have it in for me, but I don't really care. This is a request that you stop giving me unsolicited advise, and stop commenting about me. Not on my talk page, and certainly not on article talk pages. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you attack other editors and assume bad faith of them, you must expect to be criticised yourself. Now, are you going to redact your personal attack on the closing admin, or do you believe that particular policy doesn't apply to you?  Black Kite (t)   18:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What personal attack on what closing admin? I attacked no one, certainly not the closing admin.  I also questioned no one's good faith (bias, by the way, is usually subconscious - people acting in perfectly good faith are often biased never-the-less).  Leave me alone.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can't see how your comment is clearly an assumption of bad faith then I don't think I can help you; it is surprising for someone who spends the vast majority of their time arguing on talk pages rather than editing articles. I will consider whether it is time for the community to consider whether you should be allowed to continue to do that.  Black Kite (t)   18:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you don't understand how people acting in good faith can be biased, I can't help you. The point is, pointing out a possible bias is not at all an assumption of bad faith.  That's ridiculous.  And there is no rule about how much time people spend on talk pages vs editing articles.  I see you re-inserted your highly inappropriate and irrelevant to that talk page personal attack.  I'm asking you to remove it immediately.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It can hardly be irrelevant when it's pointing out your clear assumption that the closing admin acted in that way because he has an inbuilt bias because of his country of origin (which you clearly must've headed for his userpage to find out - how's that for assuming bad faith?). So no, I won't be removing that.  Black Kite (t)   18:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A user, Thryduulf, made a comment. A second user, 67.80.253.66, questioned the interpretation expressed in the first user's comment.  I then simply noted that a possible explanation for the first user's interpretation was that user's country of origin, which is revealed on his user talk page (and I quoted from it). Then you came in with this bizarre comment attacking me for my "previous record" (WTF?) and saying that I suggested that the closing admin (WTF?) was acting in bad faith.  You then asked me to redact something I did not even think, much less say.  Not only was it a personal attack, but it was a complete non sequitur.  It's baffling really.  Why are you being such a jerk about this?   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so "closing admin" is not clear, but it's obviously Thryduulf that I'm talking about - after all, my comment is directly below your reply to him. Black Kite (t)   20:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. It's obvious that by closing admin you meant someone who was not the closing admin.  Pardon me for missing that.  Do I really need to ask why you wrote closing admin if you weren't referring to the closing admin?  I've been in some pretty inane discussions before, but I dare say this one tops them all. I still cannot understand what on Earth was your point, except to disparage me.  And why you would want to do that, I cannot fathom.  I do presume the good faith is there, somewhere, I'm just saying I don't see it.  But whatever the mystery, I suspect it also explains whatever it was I said or did that you apparently perceived as a bee under your bonnet in the past... some kind of misunderstanding on your part, my part, or both.    --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is your original comment: "I would strongly suggest that, given your previous record on controversial requested moves where you don't get "your way", that suggesting that a closing admin is biased in some way is a spectacularly bad idea, and I would even more strongly suggest that you redact it." Let's try to "fix" it by reading "closing admin" as a reference to Thryduulf: "I would strongly suggest that, given your previous record on controversial requested moves where you don't get "your way", that suggesting that Thryduulf is biased in some way is a spectacularly bad idea, and I would even more strongly suggest that you redact it." Now, please explain why suggesting that Thryduulf, like every other human being on Earth, "is biased in some way", is a "spectacularly bad idea". Again, no matter how you slice it, your comment is not only a completely  inappropriate attack on me, but it simply makes no sense.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you complaining about Born2cycle? And also Black Kite, you might like to know that his buddy said this about you In my response to that, that statement absolutely untrue, Black Kite along with Worm that turned is probably among the best admins on the whole of wikipedia, the brief time that ive known him he has been helpful and was very civil in his tone and offered me a lot of advice, whatever you said about that rubbish that he was abusing his power is totally untrue, I have met admins in the past who really have been uncivil and above all, unfair. However Black kite is not one of them; and besides surely havent you got anything better to do than hate on other users? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC) PS and dont tag it for citation. Refactoring others talk page comments is against wikipedia policy. User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 10:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What am I complaining about? Being attacked by Black Kite when he jumped into the middle of a discussion at Talk:Yogurt with no apparent purpose except to disparage me. All I know is that my interaction with Black Kite is very limited, and can best be characterized as WP:HARASSMENT of me by him.  It wouldn't surprise me if he mistreats others this way too, but I have no first hand knowledge of that.    --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This thread should be archived no good for anyone. But Black Kite is a good admin. And i wouldn't say its harassment not on his part anyway. Edinburgh  Wanderer  22:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I won't be deleting this thread; unlike some others who don't like their editing to be under scrutiny. It'll be archived in a couple of days anyway.  Black Kite (t)   00:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just my two scents since I've happened upon this...LedRush isn't B2C's "buddy" (and nor am I), but I happened to agree this made no sense (though it's easy for me to come to that conclusion being an outsider to yoplait style foods, and only starting to read with the closing admin and Thyrguds comments onwards to the end of this discussion).--Sexy Kick 00:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sexy, I haven't really addressed the merits of the dispute, but B2C actually looks 100% right on this. On the policy, there is a landslide of evidence for one position, yet the closing admin seems to ignore it.  A baffling decision really.   And, of course, you're right that this could be the first time that B2C and I have agreed on anything at all.LedRush (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry, I couldn't care less about the article name (or LedRush for that matter - I tend not to be concerned about single purpose editors who aren't here to improve the encyclopedia); I was just a little irritated at seeing - yet again - B2C criticising other editors in a bad faith way when he doesn't get his way on an article renaming. He really needs to stop doing it, or eventually the community will end up doing it for him. Black Kite (t)   00:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Sexy and I know each other exclusively from our work on the video game project, and B2C and I know each other from Sega Genesis and article naming policy discussions, it would seem that your personal attack against me is also demonstrably false.LedRush (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't take me for an idiot, it doesn't become you. Black Kite (t)   19:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pointing out bias as a possible explanation for how someone interpreted something is not criticizing anyone, much less is it criticizing in a bad faith way.  It certainly wasn't intended that way. Bias is inevitable, and not even necessarily unfortunate. Your zeal in trying to find fault in my behavior, no matter how slight, is not improving the encyclopedia.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat tangentially, won't be half as much fun as the mirth and hilarity that will ensue with the closing of the RfC on WT:V..I can't wait, cooking up some popcorn now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks Cas :) Black Kite (t)   00:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Men's rights issues
Sorry to bug you Black Kite but I'm recused from sysop duties in the wider gender studies area and the patrolling admin (KillerChihuahua) is busy in real life. Last week User:Cybermud was topic banned for a week by KC for "continued batteground behavior and incivility towards other editors" in these diffs. He returned to WP today and made this post in response to that now expired ban. It seems Cybermud has not got the message re WP:BATTLE--Cailil  talk 23:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keeping an eye on that one, will certainly extend the topic ban if the previous problem recurs. Black Kite (t)   18:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Aggressive IP Editor
See User talk:200.104.120.204, you blocked an IP editor for edit warring on Ian Gow. He is back and the first thing he did was to revert again. , twice today. Different IP address but exactly the same edits as before and the edit summary on the second is fairly conclusive. You can't talk to the guy as every time you try, you get a ton of abuse in response. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First thing? Gosh no. I've done much more than that over the past two weeks.  I wonder if you will ever give an explanation for your revert-warring.  Simply saying "They're relevant" does not justify the inclusion of trivial details such as the brand of his car.  Your edit summary of "rv IP edits" belies your true motivation here.  190.46.108.141 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit-war. However, with you using edit summaries like "Get over your pathetic little grudge", it would appear to be better to semi-protect the article for a while.  Also, I cannot for the life of me work out why the make of Gow's car and the name of his house is somehow "POV".  Whilst you might well be correct in that it's a trivial detail, it certainly isn't POV unless I'm missing something.  Black Kite (t)   18:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no intention of any further reverts, if you'd care to note I have tried to engage on Talk:Ian Gow. But whatever I try the guy always responds aggressively.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "it takes two to edit-war" was in reply to the IP, incidentally, who appears to be saying that his edit-summaries justify his removing information. Black Kite (t)   18:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The POV was "refused to". The car and the name of the house are trivial, irrelevant details.  "Wee curry monster" has reverted these changes with no sensible explanation at all.  It's not a content dispute, really - he's simply reverting in an attempt to attack me.  190.46.108.141 (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO "refused to" and "did not" are trivially different, although this would suggest he refused to take even routine security precautions. Black Kite (t)   19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Refused to" gives the appearance of knowing his intentions and his response to specific advice. It expresses a point of view about his reasons for not taking security precautions (if indeed he didn't - there is a contradictory claim on the article's talk page).  "Did not" does not.  The Telegraph article does not seem to support the idea of an actual refusal to take security precautions.  I have now explained my edits in detail several times; "wee curry monster" has not bothered to give anything more than a vague, meaningless, unsubstantiated "these details are relevant".  His "rv IP edits" shows that he cares about the editor, not the edits themselves.  190.46.108.141 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, thanks for amplifying, you can see what I'm up against. He is removing relevant information from the article, he is adamant he is right, everyone else is wrong and he sees everything as a personal affront.  How the hell are you supposed to edit collaboratively with this guy?  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You, "wee curry monster", cannot, because you started off by attacking me, and you've continued ever since. You've shown very poor judgement about article content, failing to see the problem with blatantly POV text.  You have shown very little inclination to discuss anything, preferring blanket reverts.  You stalked my edits and undid a lot of work with pathetic edit summaries like "rv IP edits".  Why would I want to edit collaboratively with you?  I am working collaboratively with plenty of other people, as you will no doubt see if you continue to stalk my edits. 190.46.108.141 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough. If you can work collaboratively with others, you can do it here; article Talk Page please. And it's probably better if you don't describe semantics as "blatantly POV", as well.  Black Kite (t)   00:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiss
Can you protect the page so my "faggot propaganda" can be kept on the page. C T J F 8 3 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't because I'm involved (I would otherwise) but I've put a request in at WP:RPP. Black Kite (t)   18:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. C T J F 8 3  18:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mommy
I'm not sure a simultaneous DRV and RfD is a great idea. 28bytes (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't have been so if someone hadn't fucked up the process. Black Kite (t)   23:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So does this get it unfucked, or fucked even harder? Heck if I know. Should be entertaining, at least. 28bytes (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At least it concentrates all the fucking in one place, which sounds good to me. Black Kite (t)   23:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

An eye on this
Hi Bk, sorry to bug with British Isles stuff but please take a look at this. User:Van Speijk was notified and warned in accordance with WP:GS/BI (with special mention of conduct) the diff given is his response--Cailil  talk 00:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sheodred (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:WebHamster
I've reblocked him, because it seems clear that anything else would be rewarding a disruptive and obnoxious editor for sockpuppetry and general abusive editing. The discussion is currently centered at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done. It's fairly clear you didn't read any of the relevant discussions before you did that, isn't it?  You didn't consult me, and you didn't consult Jehochman either, the original blocking editor, who had agreed to an unblock. Oh, and since they're the same editor, you're wheel warring.  I'd rather strongly suggest you undo that.  Black Kite (t)   18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the blocking reason "unrepentant sockmaster", who had just voluntarily outed all of his socks. Did you read that as well?  Black Kite (t)   18:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

History of commitment ordering
Hi, you were the closing admin for History of commitment ordering. Can I ask you to restore a copy of the article to my userspace? I don't want to re-create the article, but there were some references which I might want to use for an article on dynamic atomicity. Thanks, Dingo1729 (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks again, Dingo1729 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Fat lady sings
I'm sorry but where is the place that you were referring to where the matter of these articles Special:Contributions/Merovingian should be discussed? Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, not at WP:ANI, that's for sure. Is there a WikiProject page they all come under?  I presume there is.  Black Kite (t)   19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. Let's just make sure that everyone at ANI understands where the discussion will be moving before closing it, shall we?  Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, no problem tweaking a closed discussion to add that. Black Kite (t)   19:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lies
You told me that was an easy close! It took me 50 edits to find all the files they were talking about, restore, remove FFD tags, and relist. I call shinanigans on you!--v/r - TP 01:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL, I was assuming you were going to close it as relist, not relist all! You can't blame me if you take the difficult option! Black Kite (t)   07:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Noel Ashman
Would you be so kind as to restore a copy of Noel Ashman to my userspace? I would like to work on the article. Thanks in advance. Todayilearned (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Second request to stop commenting about me
I've asked before. So, this is my second request to you to stop commenting about me. Not on my talk page, and certainly not on article talk pages. For the record, you commented about me, today, unprovoked, and in antagonizing way, here. Pathetically, I engaged in the pointless discussion, and, when I decided to hide it because it was so irrelevant (not to mention stupid and pointless), you got all inappropriate (according to others, not just me) on my talk page. I should have just left this comment here in the first place. In any case, better late than never.


 * LEAVE. ME. ALONE.

I hope that's clear.

Thank you. --born2 c Ycl e  02:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. No, you are not going to drive me away from pages you are active on (as I said, I've had that particular one watchlisted for years).  And if you think you have the right to ask me to stop commenting on your behaviour on article talk pages, whilst still thinking you have the right to comment about other people's behaviour (latest example - your comments about people being "absurd" on Talk:Yoghurt), well, that's just breathtaking hypocrisy.  Simple answer - if you don't like anyone shining a light on what you're doing, then the simplest way is to stop doing it.
 * I hope that's clear. Black Kite (t)   08:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you're conflating a generalization I made about the absurd arguments the side opposing returning that article to its original title "Yogurt" (like, in essence, "it's not important - but important enough for me to spend years opposing it") with personal attacks on a specific person, apparently, I wasn't clear. To clarify, I'm not asking you to not comment constructively on that page or any other.  I'm asking you to not comment about me personally (or anyone else for that matter, per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) on that page, or anywhere else. Is that clear?   -- bo r n   2  c Ycl  e  18:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's totally clear. You're basically saying that if you do anything I disagree with, then I'm not allowed to talk about it.  Which - to use your words - is absurd.  I think this conversation is at an end.  Is that clear?  Black Kite (t)   18:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm simply asking you to abide by WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (which also says, by the way, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor."), and WP:CIVIL: "It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. " If you don't realize your comments about this editor -- like "given your previous record on controversial requested moves where you don't get 'your way'" and "So you don't choose WP:ENGVAR only when it suits you, you don't choose WP:COMMONNAME only when it suits you, you don't choose "go back to first contributor" only when it suits you, and you don't pick and choose bits of WP:MOS only when and where they suit you?" -- are derogatory and attacking (not to mention baseless) you're not being honest, with yourself.  -- bo r n   2  c Ycl  e  18:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * B2C, can't you see the problem here. By calling other editors views "absurd" you are effectively attacking them.  There's absolutely no difference between the two.  If you can stop doing that, I won't comment on your editing (unless you do something completely ridiculous).  Can we possibly agree on that?  Black Kite (t)   18:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, to argue that characterizing an argument or view or position as being absurd is a personal attack, is, well, an absurd argument, and would mean my making this point here is a personal attack on you. Of course that would be absurd, and of course it's not a personal attack.  Do you seriously not see the difference?  -- b<span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">o <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">r <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">n   2  c <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">Ycl  e  19:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Some typical examples from talk pages. Do you believe these are personal attacks?
 * "Classicjupiter2's arguments for deletion contain a bunch of absolutely absurd implications."
 * "This is the most absurd decision I've read in Wiki so far..."
 * "It is absurd to suggest there is no reference to this original work. "
 * "The reasons you all have given for deletion is absurd!"
 * " Your absurd changes to Luciano Pavarotti article "
 * "This whole discussion is absurd. "
 * "And the claim that William and I are socks is absurd and can not seriously be made in good faith. "
 * "Speaking of absurd, let's take a look at the two sides in this debate about what policy really means: One one side, we have..."
 * "This seems like an absurd, convoluted, instruction creep-ish way to handle a serious issue. "
 * "I am trying to control myself, but I am overcome by my sense of how perilously absurd both these arguments are."

Are all of these references to other contributors views as being absurd "effective attacks" that should be addressed? There are countless examples like this that look very similar to what I wrote. To put this in context, here is what I wrote:


 * "Suggesting a no consensus close with a comment expecting discussion to continue is a reason the discussion should end is absurd, but that's par for the course here since absurdity has been the basis for... " Talk:Yogurt
 * "Just more absurdity on the part of the "Yoghurt" advocates. " Talk:Yogurt

Seriously, by what standard are my comments a personal attack? Once again, you seem to be making up stuff, and holding me to standards to which no one else is held, just to harass me, because of some kind of vendetta. This is why I'm asking you, repeatedly, to stop commenting about me. Is that too much to ask? -- b<span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">o <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">r <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">n  2  c <span style="position: relative; bottom: ;">Ycl  e  20:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

BSN vs BAN
We have been conducting reasearch on Body Sensor Networks for nearly ten years and would like to write an article about the field. The editting of the article is under progress. However, it seems that the site is always redirected to Body Area Network.

BSN and BAN are actually different and often mistakenly used. Body Sensor Network (BSN) refers to both the infrastructure and applications of the network, just similar to Wireless Sensor Network (WSN), while Body Area Network (BAN) refers to only the network infrastracture similar to Local Area Network (LAN) or Personal Area Network (PAN).

The term BSN also includes the use of implantable sensors and which is a different wireless connectivity to those commonly used in BAN. BSN also covers several network topologies than that described on the existing BAN page.

We are new to wikipedia, so please advise what can we do to keep the Body Sensor Networks wiki page. We are willing to edit the content, if it is not agree with wikipedia's policies. As an expert and a strong supporter in the field, we would like to set this straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.79.2 (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Cradlewood
As the overwhelming consensus at the AFD was that the article was not yet ready for mainspace, and unless User:Sk8erock has gotten it userfied to him, might you reconsider my proposal that it be incubated? If improved enough upon verifiied release of the film, it might make it back... and if not it will be deleted from the incubator with no fanfare or drama.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking in.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pat Villani
Hi, I saw that you deleted the article "Pat Villani" yesterday while I was still working on it. Well, would you mind to have a second look at the article and the corresponding deletion debate, please?

I'm not sure, if the overall outcome of the discussion actually was a "delete" (well, you stated "redirect", but given that the previous page contents no longer exists in the page history, this is more a delete than a normal redirect).

There have been several people recommending the deletion of the page, but this was at a time, when the article actually lacked any references and the article's text did not elaborate on Villani's achievements as the original author of the FreeDOS kernel except for mentioning it in a half-sentence.

By what was written in the original article, someone, who is not familiar with operating system design or this project, would probably not realize the fundamental impact of Villani's work on the project and thereby to the very existance and use of FreeDOS worldwide for some 15 years now.

I'm not the original author of the article, but this is when I became aware of the debate through my watchlist. Being a professional in the field myself, I tried to give some background information to lay a better factual fundament to the debate. I also started to search for more facts and references myself. In the debate I asked the other participants to comment on my argumentation of notability alongside the WP policies, but unfortunately only two of them bothered to comment, one of them removed his "delete" and another suggested "userfy". Yet another suggested "wait". From these newer comments I got the impression that they too felt the subject is in fact notable, but it is difficult to formally "prove" it in short time through online resources if WP policies are blindly followed (not everything is online and it sometimes takes its time to find people with background knowledge), but that the subject can be considered notable if the WP policies are interpreted with a bit more common sense or good will. That's when I started to actually improve the article. So, the article at the beginning of the debate and when you deleted it had little in common. The article you deleted was referenced quite heavily (although the references themselves needed more work - in fact, yesterday I was in the process to further improve them, when you deleted the page).

I have, of course, tried to reconsider my recommendation for "Keep", but although Villani was not a "pop-star", I still very much feel, that the person and his work was in fact important in the real world and therefore should be covered in this encyclopedia.

I don't know if you were fully aware of this development of the article when you deleted it. If not, I would like to ask you to have a second look at the article, the corresponding debate and both edit histories, and recheck, if this is really something that should not be on WP. If you cannot help otherwise, please userfy. Thanks for your time and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, and I agree. Therefore I have restored the article and altered the AfD. Black Kite (t)   18:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability RfC closing
Okay, I think I've done most of the reading now. How do you think we ought best to proceed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Ascott House south.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ascott House south.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yoghurt
I think I've had enough of the poo-flinging over there. I've stated at least twice that I have it watchlisted because it's a target of perennial mild vandalism (and poorly sourced Bulgarian nationalism) so I place this here in the hopes that you still have it watchlisted and will keep an eye on it after you return to editing. I don't see any of those edit warriors reverting stuff that actually mars the page, but I do see worse vandalism, and this has started to sour me on Wikipedia as a whole. So I'm unwatching it. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

About topic ban
Hello,

Any reason for this edit, i.e. why the topic ban conditions were changed and what prompted the same.

Just need some clarity, as I am a bit confused about the ban conditions.

Thanks.<font color="#FF9933">इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति <font color="#FF9933"> Humour Thisthat2011  21:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:V
I volunteered to help with the WP:V RfC closure. To that end, I have started a deliberation page here. Please jump in and add/subtract/disagree/agree with what I've started there. Cla68 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Hope all is well your end, and you will return in the near future :) Happy seasons greetings too! User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 12:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hi Black Kite. You participated in Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on. The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Deepdish7
Hi, this IP address that has come to edit the Boris Berezovsky is exactly like the indefinitely blocked User:Deepdish7 and is disrupting in exactly the same style. I will post a few diffs later today, when I have time to go through Deepdish's contribution history. Youreallycan (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010
Template:Editnotices/Page/Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI
If you decide to check in during the next week or so you may wanrt to comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Born2cycle/blackkite. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  01:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Morphyre
Hi. I created a page in 2009 for a music visualisation called Morphyre. It was deleted because it had insufficient coverage. It is now listed on:

- the Apple iTunes store in two different versions at http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/morphyre-visualiser/id495968233?mt=12 and at http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/morphyre-christmas-visualiser/id487696907?mt=12

- the Windows Media Player visualisations page at http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/downloads/windows-media-player/visualizations; and

- softpedia at http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Audio/Morphyre-Visualiser.shtml

as well as being on the Winamp site (which was the only site it was on originally) at http://www.winamp.com/visualization/morphyre-visualizer/222088.

I think that this gives it at least as good coverage as other music visualisations that have articles on Wikipedia. If you agree please reinstate the Morphyre page or let us know why not.

Thanks!

- Gordon Gordonfwilliams (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Merry X'mas~!
<div style="; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: #FC9; border: 1px solid #8888aa; padding: 10px; width: 425px; clear: both;"> <div style="; border-style:solid; border-color:#4682B4; background-color:#900020; border-width:5px; text-align:left; padding:18px;" class="plainlinks" valign="top" width: 300px;> "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.