User talk:Black Kite/Archive 41

Moto GP Riders
I do not think it was right what you did, however, are certainly not for me to decide. All items that I created were created because the subjects are certainly encyclopedic seen participating in a world championship. Thus, the articles are a few details, though, there are still many items to create drivers for the World Championship, so I thought I create the base of the article with the essential info and races attended then add the other information at a later time, or waiting for help from other contributors, as has happened to the pilots participating in the 2012 championship. My question now is: What should I do? Items such as Joshua Sommer are not going well? I ask again apologize for the inconvenience created P. S. The items were created offline at night and put on the wiki in the afternoon, so I had the files ready ... It would be impossible to insert data into 1 minute! --Alexxander3000 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you've created large amounts of articles with dubious notability (many of the riders had never competed in MotoGP, only Moto2 or Moto3, and some of them only in one race), and also errors in formatting, linking etc. Because your articles are autopatrolled, they were never checked for quality or notability by new page patrollers.  This is obviously not a good state of affairs. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

BikerOrNot.com
I'm new to Wikipedia and a member of BikerOrNot. I'm trying to help improve the motorcycle related articles on Wikipedia, and I helped edit the newly created (and deleted) BikerOrNot page. Could you please help me understand why it does not qualify as a valid article for Wikipedia? I didn't see any explanation on the delete page, it indicates you deleted it, and policy states I should contact you first regarding the page and its deletion. Thanks, Iglooflame (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi - there were three editors "voting" to Delete the article, and giving policy-based reasons for it. Hence the decision to delete the article. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please reopen the discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=487869165&oldid=487868437

Please check out the following comments:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=487868437&oldid=487866703
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=487869728&oldid=487869165
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=487870544&oldid=487870116

The discussion should be allowed to continue in order to determine whether there's consensus to overturn the block. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The block is expired, so there is nothing to review.  MBisanz  talk 19:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said on Wnt's talkpage, there's nothing to stop discussion continuing elsewhere; it just doesn't belong at ANI, as no admin action is urgently required. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Winning
Man, I can't stand losing. He like totally won, you know. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling seriously defeated. Weird set of contribs though - loads of video games stuff in 2006, then reappears with a dubious pseudo-racist POV and a bad attitude 6 years later... Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Vost's talk page.
I believe the proper admin action for revoking talk page access is to change the block settings. Am I right? Now no one but administrators can edit that page.— cyberpower Chat Offline  02:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone else want to edit it? Drmies (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about wanting to edit it but there may be the need for someone to need to post a message on that users's talk page and I believe protecting it was improper.— cyberpower Chat Limited Access  11:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There was a reason which I won't mention here per WP:BEANS, but thinking about it I've unlocked it and tweaked the block settings. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you.— cyberpower Chat Limited Access  13:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Aevol
Thank you for deleting my page without even a message of notice or anything, that was very nice !

I would like to point you to No original research in which you will find the following :

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

It is quite clear that no UNpublished material should be posted... Could you please explain why my page has been deleted

Thank you D. Parsons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsons.eu (talk • contribs) 07:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly; in this discussion (Articles for deletion/Aevol) a majority of editors found that there were no reliable third party sources covering the subject in detail. Black Kite (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was clearly underlined, though, that acceptance in peer-reviewed scientific journals and international conferences do indeed establish notability and reliability. This was added yesterday and received no answer... I should add that an article that states Aevol was just published in Nature Reviews Microbiology http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v10/n5/full/nrmicro2750.html. If being published by the NATURE publishing group does not establish reliability and notability, what will? Parsons.eu (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is as may be; however as closing administrator I can only take account of the opinions of editors that contribute; if consensus is that an article is insufficiently sourced I have to assume that editors have looked into this and made that call in good faith. I cannot ignore the consensus unless it is based on "votes" that are clearly erroneous or not policy based.  To appeal the deletion of the article, your next port of call should be WP:DRV (you do not need to notify me again if you do so). Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No Consensus on AfD/CampingRoadTrip.com?
Hi BlackKite, I'd appreciate it if you would go back and take another look at this,I'm hoping you were in a hurry or something I at minimum think the AfD didn't deserve to be closed. The votes were majority Delete, with a single leaning keep, and weak keep. The delete votes were all backed up with similar rationale that has a solid foundation. The article really has no place on wikipedia.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

List of The Bill characters (A-D)
Re "no idea why this maintenance tag was removed without fixing the problems; indeed, they're now even worse"; I told you the reason. It's pointless to resist, being tantamount to attempting to empty the Pacific Ocean with a thimble for a bailing bucket. It's futile. An enormous amount of work has been expended over the last few years attempting to get the project compliant with WP:NFCC. That effort has been utterly wasted. The masses have won. Far better to add the missing 23 photos to this article than attempt to remove the 20 it has. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well at the moment I have been going through the mass overuse articles fixing them; this is the only one where I am encountering resistance so it's not all bad news. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, I'm not sure you understand how futile this is. I started keeping track of the article over usage in November of 2010. Myself and several other people fought valiantly to reduce the problem. After all this effort, after 18 months of trying, the net difference in the problem is 3%. Yes, _three_ percent. Arbitrarily assuming that 50% of the articles on the report are abusing non-free usage (that is likely a very conservative assumption), at this rate it will take 25 years to achieve compliance.
 * For every person trying to uphold the NFCC policy, there's dozens upon dozens of others who are either (a) completely ignorant of it, (b) aware of it, but don't care or (c) aware of it and actively fight against it. In exchange for this effort, NFCC patrollers are routinely harassed/insulted and some suffer sanctions and/or editing restrictions. The article (tied for) first in the most abuses category is Quarter_(Canadian_coin) (the listed #1 has all of its images mistagged; they're free). It's been tagged since November of last year with non-free. You know how many images have been removed? None. A bunch have been added. This is the #1 target for overuse abuse patrolling. Effect? Nothing.
 * NFCC is an empty, vacuous policy. The reality is that under Fair Use law, we don't have to justify any of the uses of non-free images on this project. We're an educational resource. That gives us substantial leeway in the use of such works. On the off occasion that we're challenged on the use, we can easily defend it. We don't need rationales. Foundation counsel has on multiple occasions confirmed that our use of non-free images is well, well within fair use law. Do we care about downstream users? No. That's a laugh. There's not a single project out there I am aware of that is working with the Wikimedia Foundation to distribute the content here in some other form. Not one.
 * You're screaming into the wind, and there's precious few people left who are willing to scream with you. Like I said before, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Until the Wikimedia Foundation decides to get serious about its Mission, efforts to enforce NFCC are utterly futile. This is what the Foundation wants. They want en.wikipedia to be the largest repository of non-free images in the world. It's good business. It helps them to maintain their ranking as a top ten web site. As long as they maintain that ranking, donations will keep coming in. If they do something to undermine that ranking, they are shooting themselves in the foot. They won't do it.
 * I am considering placing the NFCC policy for deletion. A huge number of people will knee-jerk and assume it's a giant pointy violation. But, the reality is the policy is unenforcable, and in net outcome is unenforced. So much dialogue is wasted arguing over non-free images that could be better spent building real content in the project. A bot could easily run through and re-tag all non-free images with a generic tag along the lines of "This image is used under terms of Fair Use law within the U.S. To challenge the use of this image, please contact ..." and leave it at that. The policy has become a serious detriment to the advancement of the project. Very few people really understand the policy anyway, because very few people here actually have training in intellectual property law. My chief obstacle in bringing it to MfD is how to articulate the position to avoid the seemingly unavoidable masses that will attack the whole thing as a point violation, and have a serious discussion about the supportability of the policy.
 * Consider that Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy states that if we're going to have non-free images, we have to have an EDP. The EDP definition does not include any assertion that we have to do anything other than comply with copyright law. The only aspect of that resolution that has any teeth is the prohibition on using non-free images of living people. Of course, that has been eroded as well (we allow non-free images of living people if they're in prison, on the run from the law, no longer active in their field that made them famous, or if they're a noted hermit). Yes, there is a further admonition to keep non-free use minimal, but that's a joke. The Foundation knows damn well that we don't comply with that (I myself have informed them on multiple occasions, to no effect) and simply don't care (see above for why). Note that the resolution does not state that a rationale needs to be specific to its use or that there needs to be a rationale for each use, only that it is "applicable" (and they haven't defined that). An applicable rationale could simply be a generic rationale that states as I did above. Also note the Foundation finds acceptable the Polish wikinews EDP. That EDP contains no restrictions towards minimal use, allows the use of promotional imagery, and liberal use of logos. It's pretty blatantly obvious that our own EDP is far, far too restrictive.
 * What is certain is that NFCC patrolling efforts are absolutely futile. A different path has to be taken. That path is less certain, but based on the Foundation's stance it is apparent that the least offensive, most likely to be well supported approach is liberal inclusion of non-free content within the confines of Fair Use law. If we do that, the only work will be about whether things are free or not (WP:PUF), and maintaining a bot to maintain licenses and generic rationales. The futility of WT:NFC goes away, WP:NFCR goes away, and a considerable number of FfDs go away, plus we simplify WP:CSD criteria, reduce the number of maintenance reports having to do with non-free content at Database reports, and reduce the insane load applied to Commons by people from here trying to circumvent copyright and NFCC here by posting non-free content there under a false license. These are all good things. Given the inexorable decline in users, this is the most logical approach to reduce the workload plus reduce some of the hostility that is generated on the project for new editors who don't understand copyright law but get slammed when they make the smallest mistake. There are so many net positives to eliminating NFCC policy if you take a step back and look at it with an abstract, emotionally detached eye. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Snoezel doezel slaap
Black Kite--you have a small child! How cute. This CD worked very well for me, and it's an excellent way to learn (some) Dutch. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad RfC
Should we start a little email chain going on this? Not to come to a conclusion on how to close the RfC (yet), but to talk about how we're going to do this, timeframes, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I sent you an email, hopefully we can have some preliminary idea of where we're going soon. Keilana | Parlez ici 05:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck with this! A difficult task... :) Thom2002 (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reign Supreme deletion
This article was deleted and I'm a bit confused as to why. The last message in the discussion was a comment by me asking why sources were valid sometimes and not others. Erikvcl (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles
The abortion article titles RFC is now closed. We hope you can collaborate with your fellow closing admins and a consensus can be determined by 1 May 2012. As you were appointed one of the closing administrators, you are receiving this message. Discussion with the other closers will be taking place here: WP:RFC/AAT. If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. It's late here in the UK however, I will start looking at the discussion tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project
Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Reign Supreme deletion
This article was deleted and I'm a bit confused as to why. The last message in the discussion was a comment by me asking why sources were valid sometimes and not others. Erikvcl (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Black Kite -- I do not understand your silence on my query. It is valid of me to ask why you ignored my valid question. It seems like the same source is valid in some contexts and not others. This seems strange to me. If there is some Wikipedia policy that you can cite to clarify, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Erikvcl (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I have been a bit pressed for time. Unfortunately, a closing administrator cannot look at the sources, they can only look at the consensus of debate and whether those comments are valid.  In this case, it would have been impossible for me to close a debate with three Delete comments against a single Keep from the author of the article any other way.  If you would like to contest the deletion, you need to go to deletion review.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I'll just wait until the album comes out and re-add the article using reliable sources at that time. Thanks! Erikvcl (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So yeah, RFC:AAT
You wrote "It is also pointed out 1 fails to identify the topic - that's not to say the US pro-choice/pro-life movements aren't not an encyclopedic topic in their own right, of course". Yeah, that's basically our entire problem right there -- the absolutely unshakeable assumption that "the topic" is the issues on each side of abortion, that is our article scope and we're trying to come up with terms for it. Seriously, no. We weren't asked that question, we were asked what titles to use on these articles. Unless we're throwing out WP:TITLE (why would we do that?), title defines scope. If we used option 1 as the titles, that would be a rescoping back to the movements. (Which WP:PRESERVE says we should do -- you also note "the articles were originally about the American movements", so twiddling their scope and then making new articles to cover the movements is nuts.) I dunno if you've read my essay/rant about this exact problem yet, but it's User:Chaos5023/Why your entire way of thinking about the Abortion Article Titles RFC is wrong. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 04:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account activation codes have been emailed.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Old AfD
Hello. I recreated an old article that was closed as a delete by you. I recreated it because the subject is notable per WP:PROF #1 with an h-index of 26 (see, for example Articles for deletion/William A. Tiller (2nd nomination)). I also made sure the lead offered a sympathetic summary, due to previous concerns expressed at the old AfD. Jesanj (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Query
Are we going to get a consensus analysis based on RfC regarding the display of Muhammad Images in the future or is it already out? It's been weeks since the RfC was closed. So, I'm a little confused and, to tell you the guileless truth, worried. Is it already out without me being aware of it or something, or is it going to be out in the future? Sorry, if I irked you with my seeming impatience. Brendon is here  08:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC) In case you're wondering why I asked this question on your talk page, let me tell you that the talk page of the said RfC got closed. Which, in turn, deprived editors like me of the chance to air this query. Brendon is here  09:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Closure of Abortion titles RFC
Hi Black Kite. Is a decision about WP:RFC/AAT forthcoming? AGK [•] 12:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry for the delay, had a stupidly busy couple of weeks IRL. Should have plenty of time this weekend though. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Koopa Troopa
This is at RFPP for unprotect, if you have the chance. You protected it 4 years ago, I'm inclined to unprotect completely but glad to see you are around to ask. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  11:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC
You've got mail; I've drafted a statement. Keilana | Parlez ici 06:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Need some clarification
I see that you have deleted the page Pen Fight with the reason that it was a recreation of the old article. Since, I don't know what was the old one or what are the points which could have been improved upon, I'll be in dark if I try to recreate the article. So could you kindly email me the older version and the article that I created so that I can work out the short comings. As you know, it will be too tedious to work from scratch just because it lacked source. I shall try to work upon it at my special pages. VIVEK RAI : Friend?  07:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfied to User:Vivek Rai/Pen Fight - you can see the old version by looking at the history. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC Events talk page
I realized that nobody deleted it, that's why I changed it back. I just thought the discussion should remain there since it's not obvious to anyone who has little wiki editing experience and is coming in for the first time now to see how insanely hated the decision of these 2-3 mods has been and how contentious this issue of the omnibus is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdNinja9 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Krolar62 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

About the problems with the interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT.
I was just recently able to get back to edit a little bit and I've found that there is a very long discussion about the notability of MMA event articles, which essentially boils down to the interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT. As I understand it, the problem is caused by how weak is the wording of that guideline since it essentially can be tweaked to ignore other guidelines like WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT in AfDs. I see that the discussion has taken quite sometime and it has solved nothing. Also, it seems that MMA is not the only venue where WP:SPORTSEVENT is used in this way.

If I recall correctly, one of the comments made by an administrator that I read in one of the very long discussions of MMA suggested to take the issue to WP:RFAR. However, that solution was focused on whether or not WP:SPORTSEVENT applied to MMA events and I believe that the problem is in fact WP:SPORTSEVENT, which has a terrible definition from ther start (inherently notable).

Since you have pointed out in recent AfDs that both sides have been using WP:SPORTSEVENT for keep and delete arguments at the same time, I would like to know what would you suggest to do in order to get a broader and better defined guideline with WP:SPORTSEVENT. I see that there was a discussion in the talkpage there, but it was once again focused on MMA and not in the guideline per se. I think that that section must be re-written, but I would like to know what can I do and what would be the most appropriate path to follow in order to avoid the very long discussions without conclusion that have plagued all MMA issues and to include as many expert editors from different backgrounds as possible to minimize bias. Jfgslo (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The thread you just "re-archived"
I put the archive now as per the top of the page notice "Saying the same thing over and not presenting any new arguments is not productive to the conversation. New sections that do this will be quickly archived." with the edit summary "Temper Tantrum threads get archived immediateley. DO NOT RESTORE!". The first time that particular thread being archived, I used the edit summary "Screaming Monkey threads get vanished". I just wanted to make sure you had all the facts as you're probably going to be branded as part of the cabal now. Hasteur (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Whisbih
Please undelete the Whisbih page. It is a popular drink in Taiwan and has generated discussion (at Forumosa.com) among the expat community there with little information about it available. The picture and list of ingredients that used to abide on Wikipedia would be helpful to English speakers in Taiwan. Grandfeller (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi - since the article was deleted via an Articles For Deletion discussion (Articles_for_deletion/Whisbih), you would have to contest the deletion at deletion review, or you could re-create the article yourself in your userspace (for example at User:Grandfeller/Whisbih - click on the redlink to create it) and make sure the new article has plenty of sources to show its notability. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

RFAR Perth opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:Articles for deletion/Andy Cook (footballer born 1990)
Mentoz86 (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 19:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hijama‎
Thank you for acting on the 3RR report. Am I able to restore the old version or will that be a 3RR problem for me? S Æ don talk 21:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that will be fine. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like it was taken care of by another editor. S Æ don talk  21:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a warning I have recieved
Hello.

Not to attack the editor who has warned me, but, as the blocking administrator of the other editor, can you please review the June 2012 section of my talk page? I disagree with a warning which I was issued. Thank you. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: The disruptive editor has IP hopped and continued. It may be advisable to protect the page. Thank you. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Updated Nick Savoy Page deleted
I updated his page with Notable links and included information that can now be checked and verified from sources outside of the known persons field. It has similarities from the original but has more information added. I do not understand why it was deleted. I read the G4 section and updated the page accordingly. Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggcas (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Well if I am not mistaken, Definitely possible/probable that I could be, the issue was notability. I have updated/changed/added many of the links that give third party contributions. ABC, Playboy, Tyra Banks, Dr Phil are just a few of them. Unless that isn't a reason for it to be deleted. I took a look at the deletions comments but didn't see the determining reason for the deletion from you. If you could please clarify it for me, it would help me figure out how to write the article properly so that it may meet guidelines. {Greggcas (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)} Would it be okay if the two were merged? Nick Savoy and Love systems? He is the Owner and everything that he does is based from the name. They pretty much are synonymous when talking about them. A lot of the youtube videos from Dr. Phil, Playboy and Tyra Banks only use his name and do not talk about love systems. As well as the book "The Game" has him without the love systems name attached. I Appreciate the time you have put in to assist me, thank you. Update* I also added 3 more references from outside sources that are on interviews with Nick. What would be a "reasonable" amount of "notable" sources? Sorry again for asking so many questions(Greggcas (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC))
 * As far as I could see, it was exactly the same page with the addition that he'd been interviewed on TV a few times... Black Kite (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you could find a few more reliable sources that talk about Savoy in depth that would certainly help. At the moment, the fact that most of the article is about Love Systems rather than Savoy himself doesn't help either. If that can be achieved, then the article could certainly be re-instated (it might face another AFD, but it may pass if improved enough). Black Kite (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap
If you want me to block this user on your behalf, I will do it. I blocked Andy because I'd warned him before. I am not block-happy, but if you insist that it is a worthy block, I will perform it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done it now. It was effectively worse than Andy's because it was calculated rather than an angry outburst, but I have made it 24h given the editor's fairly clean log. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
I was trying to assist with the vandalism, but a legal threat like that couldn't be ignored. Shame it had to come to that. DarkAudit (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jarred Land
Hi Black Kite, the latest series of comments at this AfD suggests a new round of sock or meatpuppets. Might merit another look. Thanks, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

UFC Deletion Debates
I know you said you closed you the UFC event AfDs as no-consensus. However, there are still 15 open and have been for about a month now. They aren't listed at WP:AfD so it looks like they won't get closed without special attention. You can find a list here. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Poston Butte High School
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. Azhix (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Clubland (compilation series)
The covers you removed are solely to illustrate the audio recording in question.Clubland (compilation series) Atkinsonhd (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple non-free images in discographies and similar articles (such as lists of characters, TV series episodes) are not allowed, per WP:NFCC and WP:NFLISTS. Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How can these images be listed against there respective CD's in the series, they have only recently been complied into one article.Atkinsonhd (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point - they can't be. The article is effectively a list or discography, and to have a non-free image for each item in a list is contrary to our non-free content policies. If the CDs were notable enough individually to have their own article, that's a different issue, but they're not. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

IP you blocked
I try to always WHOIS. That lead to Imperial College, thus Mikemikev. And as it's IPv6, unless you blocked the range he's not effectively blocked. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh - I missed that. Switching to a rangeblock now.  Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm..... Black Kite (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem? Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See - you might ask the Admin who blocked him before to see how to do it and how long he blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Canoe1967‎
FYI, they have been reported (by me) but wiped both the warning and notification. -- Neil N   talk to me  05:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob De Luca
Thanks for the advice and and offer help. I know how to upload a picture I posted the original picture (the one that has to be taken down now) and I had already posted a replacement picture on request from Mr De Luca, which was deleted by Wikipedia (details on the Rob De Luca talk page, the problem is to find a picture that is acceptable for him and Wikipedia. His request now is, if he can't have the picture up that he wants, at least have the other one removed until he finds one that is accepted by Wikipedia. Where were all those people when the article was really without picture? It's so easy to just re-post the old one, actually finding one, negotiating with the photographers is work. I've done that and I'll do it again. But I do respect Mr De Luca's request to have the old pic removed - independantly of him having the right or not to have it removed - because I uploaded it, back then without his permission being naive and thinking "if he has ANY problem with it, I'll remove it" Well, easier said than done. I can't find your email address on your page, so I couldn't send it to the record company, you can contact them [lovemberrecords.com/contact] if there's anything else.

Moonslide (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Where were all those people when the article was really without picture?" The picture has been in the article for two years so I don't understand your question. -- Neil N   talk to me  14:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

talk page comments
Hi, could you look at the two comments added today on the Homophobia talk page? after the last round of what seemed like trolling comments these seem custom-made to do the same. I didn't want to respond in case that was adding to the issue. Insomesia (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

10 ticks
Hi there could you please help to get the 10ticks page back up and runningGeorgeJones277. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's on my list of things to do. It may be a little while as I need to get some offline sources though, so please be patient. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

O.K Thanks for your responseGeorgeJones277.

TechNev16
Regarding the ANI discussion of TechNev16, you may want to take a look at the SPI on the various socks of User:DisneyCSIfan. I've had a few run-ins with him/her over the last few months, and I see some similarities that have ducks quacking, including the articles they most actively edit, favored user names, tendency to edit war, to discuss via edit summary and to use rather emphatic edit summaries, and the time frame between the opening of this account and the indef of his/her last sock, JohnDoe98. I'm planning to open a new SPI case later today when I have a bit more time, but given the back-up there, and your recent encounter, I thought a heads up might be in order. Drmargi (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User has re-added the images to Disney Channel, undoing your edit with the false cover of a redlink removal and adding them back.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * SPI is filed. I've requested a checkuser just to be safe.  I've also reverted his latest, and added an SPI notice and a 3RR warning on his/her talk page.--Drmargi (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef for disruption, the notes can be changed if the sockiness is proved. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your block of User:Myst3 for edit warring
Hello, Black Kite. I'm writing this to discuss with you, your block for edit warring filed against User:Myst3. I have looked at the contributions on which this block is based, and also at the other 2 editors involved, Dream Focus and J Greb, and it seems to me that respectfully, this is a rather one sided block.

Myst3 is someone I would consider to assume good faith with, and in essence what I see is 2 other editors effectively ganging up on them, using Wikipedia's rules and their understanding of them to avoid getting themselves into trouble (sharing the reverts and undoings to avoid 3RR of their own) - which in my mind, violates the whole intent of the 3RR.

Could I ask you please, to either review the other two editors actions, with a view to an equivalent block, or to consider undoing Myst3's block so that they may resume editing? You are free, as always, to ignore this message and leave everything in place as it stands, but I thank you anyway for your attention to the issue.

BarkingFish 19:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said at the 3RR, the fact that there are 2 editors reverting here is not the issue - I've a lot of experience with tag-teaming and I think this is genuinely two editors trying to ensure an article doesn't contain a link to what is effectively a great big slab of WP:OR on a fan forum somewhere. This definitely fails WP:EL, and Myst3 had this pointed out to him on the talkpage.  The fact that he ignored that, and actually said on the talkpage that he intended to carry on edit-warring, and then did so, is bad enough to begin with; but then he filed a 3RR report against an editor who had made only two reverts (whilst making the 3RR report look worse by duplicating diffs - that's simply lying) which is simply not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Understood, Black Kite - I fully understand the reasons now behind this block, and clearly we did not get the full story first hand. Thank you for your explanation, and for your review and reply.  BarkingFish  20:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that we weren't tag teaming, just two totally different editors, who happened to notice what was going on. I don't recall having any interactions with either of these guys before.   D r e a m Focus  20:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles
Hi Black Kite. Have you got any thoughts on the latest thread here? Progress seems to have stalled but I wonder if there's anything we can do to help move things along. EyeSerene talk 07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look over the weekend. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

About Joel Lambert
When I tried starting Talk:Joel Lambert I got this message:


 * A page with this title has previously been deleted.
 * If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.


 * 10:14, 18 July 2012 Black Kite (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Joel Lambert (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

Article as it currently stands passes WP:CSD. Hmm, but I have seriously doubts about it, WP:BLP policies being the first of many other concerns.

Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see it's been deleted again - it passed A7, but not G3 because it's a hoax, unless Google genuinely has no information at all about a 14 year old actor who supposedly has a long resume. The editor involved has created other hoaxes too. Black Kite (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15:27, 19 July 2012 Favonian (talk | contribs) deleted page Joel Lambert (G3: Blatant hoax.)
 * Gone now. Some SALT may possibly be appropriate?
 * --Shirt58 (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Already done :-) Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sierra Fiver Eight to Bravo Kilo, Sierra Fiver Eight to Bravo Kilo, I read you loud and clear, I read you loud and clear.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My other two accounts
Hello. I dont know if you remember me but I am Arsenalkid700 from a month ago. You blocked me for evading my other block. In the process you blocked User:FootballinIndiaWiki and User:IndianFootballPlayersWiki. You also blocked User:RedBullNewYork2012 which I dont care about. I do care about FootballinIndia and IndianFootballPlayers as they help me maintain a full library of pages. But when you blocked them you set them to indefinite block so I dont know when the block is over as there is no limit. As I am unblocked now is it okay for those two accounts to be unblocked as well. It would really help. Again I only am requesting FootballinIndiaWiki and IndianFootballPlayersWiki to be unblocked. RedBullNewYork2012 can be deleted. Cheers and thank you. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked both accounts. Remember, should you be blocked in the future, you must not use any other account during the period of the block. Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall remember. I was a fool the last time and honestly I will try not to get blocked period. Thank you for unblocking those two accounts. Cheers and Thank you again. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Any advice?
Hi, Black Kite. Re this, if you have the time and a whole lotta patience, a look through the more distant archives reveals much of the same. Aside from the sporadic talk page nonsense, a request was opened at MedCab several years ago, but there the trail ends; I see no signs of any resolution. One editor announced they were taking it to MedCom but I can't find any evidence that that actually happened.

At this point, I just want the discussion to stop. It's disruptive (attracts bigoted trolls and has spilled over onto various noticeboards to no good effect), distracting (how can one think of improving the article with such nonsense going on in the background), and potentially damaging to the project and its contributors (good editors are essentially rising to the bait and making less than perfectly civil comments). I have made several attempts to persuade others not to respond, and I also engaged in a lengthy discussion with North at his own talk page, telling him what I thought he needed to do to demonstrate that he wasn't just being a tendentious IDHTer. But he just keeps saying the same things over and over, and others (including me) are finding it difficult not to respond (I did so today after biting my tongue for weeks, after he made a statement I found wildly inaccurate), and the cycle begins again. So let me ask your opinion: what's the best way to bring this to a halt? At this point, I'm unclear as to whether it's primarily a content dispute or a user conduct issue. I've got other fish to fry and can't see becoming involved in a prolonged drama-fest, but I think it needs to be dealt with very soon. Rivertorch (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, to be honest. I hoped as an uninvolved admin I could persuade North to give it up, but it doesn't look that's happening any time soon.   Short of simply stopping responding to him or starting an RFC, I'm unsure what else to do. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what kind of RfC—the content kind or an RfC/U? I think the onus for the former usually would be on the editor who wants to change the article, unless there's been disruption to the article itself, which there hasn't. In the case of the latter, isn't it considered a good idea to go to WP:WQA first? I've never been involved in either of those procedures before. Rivertorch (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad
Hi there! While trying to make a minor edit by deleting the word "most" to the sentence from: " He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by most Muslims as the last prophet sent by God for mankind.[3][n 1] to "He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God for mankind.[3][n 1]" --I encountered a lot of resistance and you came up with a warning that my account will be suspended for indulging in an "edit war". Please bear in mind that two parties start a "war" as such sending warning messages to me is unfair. Let's discuss this edit: By adding the Ahmadiya sect to this statement 2 things arise: 1) Are Ahmadi's muslims? Take this excerpt from Wikipedia: The Muslim World League held its annual conference at Mecca, Saudi Arabia from 14th to 18th of Rabiul Awwal 1394 H (April 1974) in which 140 delegations of Muslim countries and organisations from all over the world participated. At the conference, the League issued the following declaration: Qadianism or Ahmadiyyat: It is a subversive movement against Islam and the Muslim world, which falsely and deceitfully claims to be an Islamic sect; who under the guise of Islam and for the sake of mundane interests contrives and plans to damage the very foundations of Islam". 2) What does "most" mean in the statement? This brings us to the question: Where does the Ahmadi sect stand statistically? I propose that the word "most" along with the reference (which, obviously is quite weak in the context of this particular sentence) to the Ahmadiyya community be removed.--Maajed (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is something you'll need to discuss on the talk page of the article (I see you already have started that process). However, merely re-instating your edit is unhelpful and is likely to lead to you being blocked.  Once a consensus is achieved on the talk page it can be decided whether your edit can be included.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Close of Starfighter AFD
Hi Black Kite,

I noticed that when you closed the Starfighter AFD, you made the Starfighter page be a disambiguation page but deleted the redirect from Starfighter (disambiguation). The guidelines for naming disambiguation pages say that when the disambiguation page doesn't have the word "disambiguation" in its name, then a redirect should be created from the page with "disambiguation" in its name (see WP:DABNAME). Even though the redirect from Starfighter (disambiguation) isn't being used right now, it should be created so that people have a way to link to the disambiguation page that signifies they really mean to be linking to a disambiguation page. Could you please undelete the redirect (I could just recreate it, but I don't want to go against your AFD close without asking first)? Thanks. Calathan (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you learn something every day. I've been an admin for 5 years and didn't know that. Thanks, and I'll undelete it now. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)