User talk:Black Kite/Archive 48

DYK process proposals/discussion thread
Notifying you that I have posted at WT:DYK some ideas how we can avoid problems of the kind we just had, in future. Contribute if you can, and thanks :)

Link). FT2 (Talk 15:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Pappu
Please respond here Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard--Cowboy forth worth (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, have responded. --Cowboy forth worth (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD for Chris Denton
The key phrase from WP:NGRIDIRON would be "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game", which they have yet to do. They're not sufficiently notable from the college days (as they have not won key college-level awards, such as the Heisman, etc) to qualify otherwise. Of course, be prepared for DRV the moment the regular season starts iff they actually play ES  &#38;L  11:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
For the block. Maybe this will be the wake-up call that several warnings haven't been. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Priya jain1002001 socks
Hello Black Kite.. User:Priya jain1002001, which you had blocked for vandalism on Pappu is creating socks now, I had reported one yesterday, but perhaps no one has looked at the report since yesterday. Can you check it. report is here Sockpuppet investigations/Priya jain1002001. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

He's back...
It is possible that he really does not understand what he did without discussion last year was wrong... and by again removing entire swaths of well-documented and sourced content he is repeating that behavior.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Input requested
Can you toss your two cents in at Talk:Sarasota Chalk Festival? Werieth (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Black Kite. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 Ghouta attacks
FYI. I'm not  particularly  interested in  getting  involved there, but it  possibly needs the eye of an admin  again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

jo wheatley entryKnights365 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)knights365
Hi BK. Can you tell me what the reason for the deletion/redirection of this page was? Advice on how I might reinstate the page would be gratefully received. This was my first effort in adding content to an existing entry that needed more content and I wondered where I went wrong. I take the comments that simply being the winner of a TV baking show does not make the person noteworthy but after I discovered that the person had gone on to write two best selling cookery books in the UK and made TV appearances I thought she was worth an inclusion. Knights365 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Knights365

Re:AFD comments
Regarding archived debate on Articles for deletion/Antoinette Tuff that was my first time in voting on an article in AFD, can you look over the comments I made & let me know if Antoinette does meet any of those in the future, would she then meet the standards for inclusion? Just wondering if my reasoning & comments were off base or not in even making them in the AFD, I'm thinking they were WP:CRYSTAL after further reflection & learning more about AFD during the process, but I wasn't sure at the time when I made them how the voting went on an article once it had already been created. In other words do we normally wait to see if a person who is WP:BLP1E meets WP:ANYBIO or just delete it and wait until they meet the standards in the future, then re-write the article again. Your feedback will help me in the future if I do vote again on another topic and try to leave valued comments.Tinkermen (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello - no, we usually delete it.  It is a trivial matter to recreate the content if the person does, indeed, meet the criteria later on.  If you wish, I can even transfer the deleted article to your userspace should you wish to work on it.  Best, Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback, thx for the offer but I have plenty of articles I'm behind on. Just trying to continue learning so I'm effective when I do get involved in an AFD discussion.Tinkermen (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pranic healing
Hello Black Kite, I kept my eye on the article but I somewhat neglected it recently. I think that the topic has potential, but our article is edited almost exclusively by people promoting this "healing technique". I've tried - again :( - to remove badly referenced material, please check. It isn't perfect - the article still needs attention of responsible editors knowledgeable in this field. But I believe that clean up and careful editing is better than deletion, the page has around 4K views monthly. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I removed the AfD, it's obviously notable but the article is terrible because supporters of the "treatment" keep adding garbage to it. Black Kite (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mail
–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Aspersions
Just noticed LordVolton's post above. And to TParis's page. And to Badmintonhist's page (I'm sure you saw his comment on LV's page). And to Bilby, Mastcell, Afterwriting, Esoglou, TechBear and Intermittentgardener's talk pages. That's a lot of canvassing to showcase the casting of aspersions and ABF. It's interesting too that he picks out Badmintonhist (who you just blocked for wikihounding Rosclese) as someone to contact-- Cailil  talk 18:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Calil... I don't believe we've had the pleasure? The editors you listed were chosen because they're either defending Roscelese or having issues with her. If you're in the tribe defending her then please feel free to join the conversation. Also note that what I wrote was a result of my conversation on her talk page regarding the intent behind nominations for deletions. That request was made by Tparis. Mastcell was also part of that conversation. Black Kite was invited because he monitors the article Roscelese exhibits editorial ownership over entitled the bible and homosexuality and also reprimands those in editorial disputes with her.


 * I want your voice to be heard, please join us on my talkpage. Lordvolton (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll come and have a look tomorrow, it's late here now. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember
To upload a local copy of an image before adding it to ITN. --  tariq abjotu  23:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Frustrated
Now, someone is reverting me at the Bud Clydes talk page and I cannot figure out if I'm opening myself up to trouble even posting some possible links at the talk page to ask if they will be OK. Very tired of the trolls over there, tired of the Inquisition attitude across the whole place, I've edited wiki for over 7 years and I am about ready to throw in the towel with editing. I've helped clean up copyvio problems, I've done multiple Fair Use rationales for articles, I'm always dealing with image stuff, which is quite confusing and sometimes WP policies are contradictory - there's always something new to learn around here (at least until you get to WP:END, heh), but the attitudes of people are starting to really get to me. Montanabw (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP
Oh, I just left a message on User:Bbb23's page about the IP you just blocked So first, thank you for acting on that situation. I wanted to be sure you are aware of the numerous prior warnings (and block from Bbb23) that the IP has been removing from his talk page but can be seen here. Thanks for you help.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes (2nd nomination)
The recent close of this AFD was, as you say, odd because because merger hardly got any support in the discussion and the page is so large that merger would be technically problematic. Please reconsider. Warden (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The way to merge it would be to provide some form of linkage to the primary sources. I'd be content with that but am not in a good position to do anything about it right now - laptop has died and physical problems make it difficult to use other computers. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the best bet is probably to link to this with a disclaimer that refers to this. The latter is the list of amendments to the lists shown in the former - although it is rarely accurate/complete, it is as near as we're likely to get without linking to individual copies of the official gazette for every challenge. I'm not even sure that the gazette is online anyway, which would make it difficult for us to keep things in order. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a reasonable plan. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Simona Williams
Hmm. I'm surprised that you managed to read any consensus out of this at all, so could you please give your closing summary? Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 09:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2/3 of the comments were delete, effectively. 2 deletes (inc. nominator) and 2 weak deletes v a Keep and a weak keep. I'd have no problem with it heading to DRV if you think the close is particulrly problematic.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
Dear Black Kite.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Cheers! Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Article rewrite
I noticed you did a great rewrite of Grangeside School. Would you possibly be able to do the same with Basingstoke College of Technology? It's not in a great state right now and doesn't use a single reference. 149.254.56.90 (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll certainly have a look when I get the chance, though I'm seriously pushed for time at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Positive feedback
I recently realized that I usually wait until editors have left the project before telling them how much I value(d) their work. I'm trying to reverse that trend, so here goes. I think we've interacted only tangentially for the most part, but I've come to have great esteem for your sanity and good judgement. When I see your username, it's always attached to an incisive, thoughtful, clueful comment, and you also tend to step in confidently to difficult areas where most admins fear to tread. You're doing great work here and I, for one, would be sorry to see you go. OK, enough of that. Back to work... MastCell Talk 23:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's much appreciated. And I could say the same. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Mail

 * I'm taking a look at the issue, but I might have a problem with admin action over one of the users whom I've previously sanctioned over a similar, but separate issue. I'll mail you back when I get a chance. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: VSHL
Is there something I should do about the sockpuppet(/meatpuppet) IPs at this AFD? I don't feel right striking them myself. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed them. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is an SPI necessary or desirable to get the collapse to stick? (or possible? with IPs?) aahh, I don't know. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

AN thread
Hi Black Kite - I saw your posts at Edit filter/False positives. Please consider responding to the AN request at Filter 188 is not working. Thanks! -- Jreferee (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

ITN
Hi, on the assumption you are looking for a good faith solution, I have removed the references to the US (not the whole comment) as mine comment has been removed. I also hatted the side discussion. diff. If you want to redact any of my comments within the hatting feel free. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

TTN involvement
Black Kite, after checking the interection analyzer I can say I voted "keep" in just two AfD started by TTN. I voted in other 7 AfD started by TTN, all the times as "redirect" and/or "merge" and all these votes are in accordance with the final outcome of those discussions, something quite common in respect to my work at AfD. Your referring to me as someone "interested in keeping trivia", besides totally ignoring the specific arguments I raised in those two afd, smells in its wording of a personal attack and implies some bad faith while frankly I do not even know why I was involved in this discussion, I voted these discussions because I have the relevant delsort in my watchlist, not because I am interested in the AfD started by a specific editor. Cavarrone 05:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My comments were more general about pop trivia AfDs, not those particularly started by TTN. When you close a lot of AfDs, you soon get to learn the names of the editors that almost always !vote Keep or Delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your response does not appear convicing at all. This is our interaction, apparently I see ZERO trivia-related AfDs in which both of us partecipated. I am not particularly active in pop trivia AfDs, and in general my AfD votes are quite equally split between delete, keep and merge/redirect votes. According to stats, among my last 250 AfD votes just 92 were keep or snow keep, and 88 of them were in accordance with the final results. Here I myself suggested TTN to boldly redirect trivia pages about anime characters that are blatanty non-notable to the parent articles. So, I have no idea about what are you referring... and your characterization of me as someone "interested in keeping trivia" still lacks any evidence. Cavarrone  19:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I only tend to close AFDs which no-one else can be bothered to. Those tend to be the more close or controversial ones.  All I can say is that I get an impression of editors from closing those AfDs.  If that doesn't reflect your editing, then I apologise, but I can only go with what I see. Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor RFC
I've tested a version of common.js that implements the RFC: it disables VE for IPs and defaults to disabling VE for new editors. It's at User:Kww/common2.js. I've used it with a new account, and it correctly disabled the preference, just as the RFC indicated.

Diff from the standard common.js is here.

So, the meat of the issue: if I proceed with implementing the RFC consensus this weekend, what are the odds of me still being an admin come Monday morning? Should I expect a summary removal of my rights at WMF insistence? Would bureaucrats even go along with that? There's a parallel discussion at User talk:MZMcBride, but I thought you might want to weigh in.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bambi
Four years of semi-protection; should it be unprotected or pending changes? --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Feyd
I find Feyd's view of me as some kind of Machiavellian mastermind entertaining. I wonder what other great accomplishments I've made in his view.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Other Backward Classes
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Other Backward Classes. 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. Previous discussion is here Warden (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Closing the RFC
Black Kite,

Thanks for responding to my request. No, I'm not going to rant and rave about it being closed to soon, I asked for admin eyes and I got them, you closed the RFC and just like you said, you're not involved. I read your suggestion also. Thank you KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  17:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies
Black Kite, this is going to sound a little strange, as it happened over a month ago, but it was just brought to my attention that my edit here inadvertently removed a comment of yours, and spanning through the diffs, I do not believe it was restored. I wanted to apologize and let you know it was entirely accidental. Happy editing, and thanks for all you do.  Go  Phightins  !  10:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I've done the same myself. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/UPS Airlines Flight 1354
Can you please elaborate on your closing on this AfD. The !votes of those wishing to keep the article did not directly address the reasons for the nomination in the first place which was the lack of sources demonstrating lasting significance. The only argument put forward was the speculative one of "there will be" and arguments amounting to WP:ITSNOTABLE with out demonstrating that using sources.  LGA talk  edits   23:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy for that, but neither was there consensus to do anything else. A no consensus close does not of course preclude a merge or redirect of the article after further discussion. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I had tried that prior to the afd see Talk:UPS Airlines, what we have here in my view is a case of a wiki project overriding wiki wide policy, there appears to be a desire by WikiProject Aviation to record on here every crash notable or otherwise. I do believe there exists a policy based consensus for at very least a redirect on the grounds that not a single editor advocating keep showed how it meets the WP:NOTNEWS policy for a stand alone article.  LGA talk  edits   23:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Option Grid
Hello, Black Kite! You recently closed the AfD Articles for deletion/Option Grid as no consensus. There may be more work to do on this closure, or some things that need to be straightened out. During the AfD discussion someone moved the article from Option Grid to Option grid. That always creates a mess and it did here. The talk page notice about the AfD wound up at the talk page under the old spelling, Option Grid, and the AfD notice is still present on the new page Option grid. Thanks for taking a look at this. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - looks like it's already been taken care of. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for that  equazcion   →  13:02, 22 Oct 2013 (UTC)

properly??
The bracket bot gonna get you for this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&diff=578633176&oldid=578628526] {NE Ent) 01:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bring it on ;) Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Oops
I think your recent edits to ANI removed one of mine ... ES &#38;L  16:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gah. Sorry about that. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Another request
Thanks for your input, can I get your thoughts at User_talk:Werieth? Werieth (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Question on block evasion
In relation to the IP block evading and your comment on the Alleged Facebook harassment ANI, their block was due to end at 19:01 according to the Block log and they resumed editing at 15:10, according to this Diff. Does it work like this? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A weeks' block from 19:01 on 26/10 would end at 19:01 on 02/11 - i.e. yesterday... Black Kite (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noticed that their editing resumed before the block was due to expire, so that's why I raised it with the original blocking Admin. Anyway, thanks for your help. JMHamo (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I remembered that my block ended on Nov 2nd. I didn't remember what specific time down to the hour, minute and second it was due to end. My memory isn't that meticulous. I didn't deliberately evade any blocks. No blocks should have been implemented to begin with because most impartial users would agree that I have done absolutely nothing wrong. You are clearly carrying a grudge JMHamo and I suggest that you let it go. It has already went too far. −		 −	Leave. Me. Alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.15 (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A9amus_Coleman&action=history He is starting again. He is reverting my edits on this page in an effort to get me to revert them back; so he can try to get me banned again. Why is it one rule for me and another for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.15 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You really need to learn about reverting. I updated the Career stats table, which you reverted actually. JMHamo (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

He said he was "updating the career stats table" but he deliberately reverted the timestamp and appearances update that I had already put in; which were both correct. He could have updated the career stats table without deliberately changing timestamp to instigate a reaction. Why can't he get warned about this? Why is the blame always placed on me? It is him who starts it by reverting edits all the time. It takes two to tango.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.15 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Is User:EzEdit a SPA with a disruptive intent
Hi Black Kite

Will you please reconsider your closure of the ANI entry "Is User:EzEdit a SPA with a disruptive intent" on grounds that
 * 1) My ban does not prohibit me from making appeals to administrator notice boards.
 * 2) There is a very real possibility the EzEdit is a sock puppet of User:DeFacto.

Martinvl (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic ban includes the statement "...any mention of measurements or editing involving measurements may be treated with blocks of escalating lengths". If you believe there is a problem with sockpuppetry then I don't believe your topic ban precludes you reporting such to WP:SPI. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Martin, you're actually quite fortunate to have not been blocked for making that report against your topic ban. ES  &#38;L  16:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and there is even more latitude in user space
was very inappropriate, you may disagree with that users opition (I do) and you may disagree with how they expressed it ( I do) but censoring them is very inappropreat. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:65.46.24.6
Every one of this static IP's 31 edits since at least  7 March  2012 have been vandalism, and they've also been blocked before. I have therefore taken the liberty  of extending  the block you  made to  30 days. If you don't  agree, I  won't  be offended and I'll  happily  revert back  to  your  original  settings of 72 hours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * Fine by me. Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

My talk page
Thanks for the concern, BK. Actually, though, I'd prefer the hidden IP 174's comments on my talk page be unhidden. Your and BB's actions are obviously in good faith, but I am capable of removing things on my own. The semi-protection seems reasonable, although I would think blocking the IP might be a better course. In any case, I do not want those edits hidden, so can you please unhide them for me? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not only will this keep me laughing for weeks, I won't feel bad when I'd otherwise have felt obligated to respond to reasonably worded inquiries. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Logan River Academy
Hi. I noticed you cleared out a lot of POV content from this article, and it's much better now. I started rewriting some of the citations with standardized templates, but now I'm wondering about some of the sources that remain. Specifically I was looking at "safeteenschools.org" and its associated YouTube video. It doesn't appear to be a much more than a blog, in which case it wouldn't clear the WP:SELFPUB bar. Even the "Private School Review" site looks like it could be user-submitted content. Just wondered what you thought or if I should take this to WP:RSN for more opinions. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything else that is contentious and sourced only to self published sources should certainly be removed, though there would be no harm checking at RSN. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested...
You're a bad boy, as per WP:POLEMIC and WP:CIR ES  &#38;L  23:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blimey, the toys have come flying out of the pram there, haven't they? Bold capitals and everything. Sheesh. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

AFD closure query
Hi mate! I wanted to query this closure with you. From my perspective, the delete/merge !votes were almost entirely "per previous AFDs", most of which were based on WP:BLP1E, which no longer applies. Both the nom (who also !voted in addition to his nomination) and the "per nom" contribution immediately after the AFD opened were seemingly unaware of the subsequent DRV. Both had this drawn to their attention; neither responded. Then there was the "delete" contribution on the basis of a lack of sources which even the "merge" crowd agreed wasn't the case (and hasn't been the case since the first AFD). There were fairly strong policy-based arguments from the "keep crowd" (dismissing BLP1E, highlighting sources) and arguments refuting the various "per previous" arguments from SPA IPs (which have a history of showing up at previous AFDs) - none were willing/able to come back and make a solid case. I'm inclined to take this back to DRV to re-endorse the previous decision there to allow recreation on the basis that BLP1E no longer applies, thus all of the "per previous" !votes were entirely weightless. Stalwart 111  03:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't take any notice of any previous AFD or DRV when closing deletion discussions. The problem I had in closing as "keep" was not only numeric, though, as some of the keep votes were simply of the format "there are lots of Survivor character articles". Black Kite (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, fair enough, but if you ignored previous AFDs and the majority of delete contributions were "per previous AFD" (including the nomination), I can't see we could then arrive at a consensus to delete. I'm suggesting "no consensus" was the most obvious result, with no consensus to either keep or delete in particular. That said (and though I appreciate you've said you didn't take previous discussions into account) there was a previous (recent) DRV discussion where consensus wasn't exactly ambiguous - it was qualitatively and quantitatively in favour of allowing recreation on the basis that BLP1E no longer applied. The alternative is that I just go and recreate the article on the basis that the concerns raised at AFD no longer apply (given they actually didn't apply before the AFD) and per the DRV that permitted recreation. That, of course, would effectively mean reverting your closure. So I'm stuck. Stalwart 111  14:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if you're really concerned about it then no problem, take it to DRV. Or can the article be improved to show some  undoubted  notability outside the TV series?  I just hope we won't end up going round in circles on this one. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and there is even more latitude in user space
was very inappropriate, you may disagree with that users opition (I do) and you may disagree with how they expressed it ( I do) but censoring them is very inappropreat. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Tip off
Hi there BK, AL from Portugal "speaking",

just to notify you that this user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thegreatelgrande) is, in my humble opinion User:Indiasummer95, blocked by you. Editing pattern strikingly similar and, in Cristian López, he reverted me immediately after being reverted, with the same M.O. Edits by the new account are, as in the previous account, most if not all mobile ones.

Note: i have also contacted the admin that handed the one-day block before you, lest you don't have the time. Cheers, happy week --AL (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

After seeing what i saw in Juan Carlos Valerón (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Carlos_Valer%C3%B3n&diff=580632377&oldid=580465779), 100% sure it's the same person, just check two or three summaries below in Valerón's article, it's the same summary, verbatim. --AL (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Circle_7_logo_(2nd_nomination)
Hello Black Kite,

First of all, the content has not been merged. Secondly, many of the stations that use that logo are not owned by ABC, but are affiliates owned by other companies, meaning that the redirect/merge target is not appropriate. Third, one of the two recommendations to merge incorrectly asserted that the article hadn't been improved, though the editor in question clearly did not notice the references showing notability that I had added, because the article had a confusing structure. I don't consider the matter important enough for a fight, but respectfully request that you give it another look.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD closure inquiry
Hi Black Kite! You recently closed the AfD discussion for Highest-valued currency unit with the result to merge it into List of circulating currencies. I find this result to be problematic both procedurally and as a matter of policy. There is no indication from the discussion that there was a consensus to merge the articles as only two users backed such a proposal. Additionally, List of circulating currencies is a high quality article that is a featured list. The content proposed for deletion was of dubious notability and cannot easily be accommodated in List of circulating currencies as it is outside of the scope of the list. In light of these problems, would it be possible for you reconsider the closure of the AfD discussion and perhaps close it as "no consensus"? – Zntrip 21:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Slavic Chorale
Hi, I would like to continue working on the Slavic Chorale article. I am not sure what you mean by getting the text userified, but I hope that means giving me access to the text, so I can work on it. Thanks.--Sanya3 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Abusive Chilean IP is back
Remember the kerfuffle at Talk:Ian Gow with the abusive IP editor who addressed us as a "bunch of dopey cunts"? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Gow&diff=581342194&oldid=579477744], He is back. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Premature archiving
Hi Black Kite! I understand that you might be busy at the moment, but several pendent posts on your talk page by other users and myself have been archived by Legobot without any response from you. You might want to change the archiving procedure to avoid archiving discussions until you've had a chance to respond. – Zntrip 19:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Vcorani
Hi, sorry for being two days late for asking this, but did you attempt to apply full protection on the blocked users' userpage? I saw 'edit this page' rather than the customary 'view source' tab there. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 15:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tip off
Hi there BK, AL from Portugal "speaking",

just to notify you that this user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thegreatelgrande) is, in my humble opinion User:Indiasummer95, blocked by you. Editing pattern strikingly similar and, in Cristian López, he reverted me immediately after being reverted, with the same M.O. Edits by the new account are, as in the previous account, most if not all mobile ones.

Note: i have also contacted the admin that handed the one-day block before you, lest you don't have the time. Cheers, happy week --AL (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

After seeing what i saw in Juan Carlos Valerón (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Carlos_Valer%C3%B3n&diff=580632377&oldid=580465779), 100% sure it's the same person, just check two or three summaries below in Valerón's article, it's the same summary, verbatim. --AL (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Abusive Chilean IP is back
Remember the kerfuffle at Talk:Ian Gow with the abusive IP editor who addressed us as a "bunch of dopey cunts"? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Gow&diff=581342194&oldid=579477744], He is back. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)