User talk:Black Kite/Archive 49

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)
 * I agree. Therefore, changed to N/C.  Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 17 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)
 * Yes, see your talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Ultraman Mebius monsters
Hi BK. Can you create a subpage replica (hopefully in its fullest form) of this deleted article in my user space? I was unaware of the discussion, and would like to see if there's any material worth salvaging for other articles. I'll nominate such a page for speedy deletion within 24 hours of it being created. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I've had Ymblanter do this for me. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

ip abuse on my talk page
Hy, could you put a longter-term partial protect on my talk page in light of this? I don't want the comment removed or hidden, just a block on new edits, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 25 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)
 * Yes, my fault - I meant to protect it for a month, but protected it for a day instead. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yo, BK
Just out of curiosity: did you get any edit-conflict weirdness when you made this edit? As you can see from the diff, it must've edit-conflicted out Modernist's comment. I feel like this is what happens when you get those edit conflict notifications that don't actually show anything different in the diff screen, but for you, did this give you the notice or did it just go through no problem? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't get anything. That does seem to happen occasionally on big talk pages. Black Kite (talk)

Arnhem 96
Can you take a look at that account, I would file an SPI on it but I am unsure of the original account. Werieth (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be fishing (and thus rejected) unless you've got a previous account to hang it on. I'd just keep an eye on it. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember some IP ranting and getting blocked for similar. Werieth (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's good enough to file an SPI on. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That edit
.. nuked! ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ta :) Not sure why bloody Firefox keeps kicking me out! Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 9 December 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)
 * The problem with that is that N/C close if effectively a keep, for which there was very little policy-based input. Can you think of another method of resolving the issue? Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, no-consensus is not the best option for an AfD, but that does seem to be the result of this particular discussion. The problem with the merger closure is that "List of circulating currencies" is a highly inappropriate place for the information and there is no consensus for merging any of the information into "List of circulating currencies". – Zntrip 01:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Another editor has opened a new thread about the merger at DRN. In my summary of the dispute, I mentioned that it is my opinion that the result of the AfD was problematic. As the admin who closed the discussion, I would like to invite you to comment on the matter. – Zntrip
 * AfDs are supposed to be closed on the merits of arguments and their applicability to policy, not vote counting. I did not see a single "keep" vote there which provided evidence of notability or any reliable sources (except for Wikipedia mirrors) which address the topic of the article. That's because such sources do not exist - it's a nonsense concept invented by a now-banned Wikipedia user with no provenance outside of this project. There were a few people on there saying "well, maybe there's a sentence or two there which could be merged into List of circulating currencies" but that doesn't mean that the whole thing wholesale deserves to be merged. All the "keep" votes - the few that there were - were of the "I like this" sort, mostly by newbie users. I can see closing the AfD as a "merge" with the understanding that "merge" means that only the non-OR, legitimately sourced parts are merged (which is actually a very small chunk of the original article). But that's about it. Other than that this kind of nonsense "content" is just an embarrassment to the project.
 * Someday I'm going to start an article on the List of all real numbers and some integers thrown in or The highest number someone has counted to at some point just to prove a WP:POINT. That's about the intellectual level we're talking about with these lists.  Volunteer Marek   22:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, I made my previous comment here to notify Black Kite about the dispute resolution discussion, not to discuss the merits of the AfD outcome. I am aware that AfD discussions are not votes. That doesn't change my view that there was no consensus to merge. Merging the articles was brought up in an offhand remark by EditorInTheRye and there was no consensus on what would be merged or to which article it should be merged. If "no consensus" was simply an untenable outcome of the discussion, I think "redirect" or "delete" would have been better than "merge". – Zntrip 23:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with that.  Volunteer Marek   19:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The DRN discussion has now been closed because of improper venue and the closing user suggested that the real dispute is the result of the AfD. I understand the Black Kite is busy, but, if time permits, I would like to hear if he or she is open to reconsidering the outcome of the AfD. I will notify interested parties and invite them to give their input here on this talk page. If this cannot be resolved here I will open a new discussion at DRV. – Zntrip 20:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was originally in favor of deleting the article on policy grounds, but I was OK with 'merge' as a compromise option. In practice, this option hasn't led to much of a compromise at all, so I would still be open to deleting it outright unless the editors involved can figure out an acceptable amount of non-OR content to port over. Breadblade (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The one option that wasn't, IMO, available from the result of the AfD was "Keep".   Perhaps the best plan would be to re-AfD; but given the issues here, possibly try a redirect as a WP:BOLD editorial decision and see where that leads. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got sources for both now, although the source for highest value might not be reliable enough. Dark SunTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 21:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither is reliable. And neither actually corresponds to article content. If you have a problem, take it to DRV. I'm getting sick of this charade.  Volunteer Marek   21:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A bold editorial decision to redirect seems out of the question as well. Black Kite, would you be willing to reconsider the AfD closure? If not, I think the only recourse would be DRV. – Zntrip 22:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi all. I have some comments regarding WP:Copying within Wikipedia, Copied's "must not be deleted" wording, and WP:Merge and delete. I anticipate that they might be raised at WP:Deletion review or at a new AfD. Since the tables are exchange rate data plus highest valued coin and banknote – all factual – I believe that they fall under WP:Copying within Wikipedia, closest to "Simple, non-creative lists of information". I see little creativity in the list definitions and the top-15 cutoff, but I am unsure about the bottom cutoff at >100/1 US$. A possible workaround is to undo the merges by revision deleting the edits to List of circulating currencies. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to keep Black Kite in the loop: 2Awwsome has started a RfD discussion for "Highest-valued currency unit" (doesn't seem like it will go anywhere) and there is still persistent reverting going back and forth on redirecting "Least-valued currency unit". Black Kite, have you thought at all about reconsidering the closure? – Zntrip 21:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The RfD was, with the closing statement citing the merge as preventing deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a count from the AfD, which seems to reflect either no consensus or keep and definitely not merge:

3 'delete's including the nominator

3 'keep's, 1 'strong keep' and one 'weak keep'

1 'merge or redirect'

You may cite WP:VOTE, but it seems to show borderline consensus for 'keep' anyway. And the sources I added, which Zntrip and Breadblade seem to have failed to notice, mean it is not OR. Dark SunTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There may be 3 'keeps' but they did were not able to make a case to keep that content on policy grounds. See WP:VOTE, or the admin remarks on the closed AfD. I've seen the sources added, but they appear to be spam blogs at worst and mirrors or forks of old versions of the article at best. The list as written was still synthesized from raw exchange rate numbers from XE, which is OR. Breadblade (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One is fine, the one added to Least-valued currency unit is. And consensus supersedes policies unless stated at WP:CONEXCEPT as one of the situations where it does not apply, WP:IAR confirms that. And 3 'keeps' and also one 'strong keep' and one 'weak keep', which makes 5. And see WP:CALC, a section of WP:OR. Dark Sun (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions aren't a vote. If you want consensus, you need to be willing to compromise. I'm still OK with merging the notable information from those articles into List of Circulating Currencies, but a couple editors have taken that to mean "copy-paste over literally everything from the deleted articles," and I'm going to continue to revert those types of changes until a middle ground can be reached. Breadblade (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2Awwsome/☼/Dark Sun: This is past the point of being ridiculous. Your behavior is borderline disruptive. What you do not seem to realize is that there is no consensus for including the material that you have continued to cut and paste into the article. Four other editors object to it. On several occasions I have invited you to explain why you think that certain information should be in the article. Simply saying that the result of the AfD was to merge is not a good enough reason. Merging does not mean stuff is copy and pasted over the objections of other editors. Whatever information is merged is still subject to consensus. Simply put, you haven't made a good faith attempt to discuss what should and what should not be incorporated into the article. So for one last time, I invite you explain your position. – Zntrip 22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

AnastasiaInternational
It seemed you were doing a good job keeping the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnastasiaInternational neutral. It has now been taken over again by the company propaganda team, renamed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnastasiaDate in a 1st edit, history deleted, etc. Just FYI.72.234.107.245 (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Right
So I respect you, and also trust ya. On copyvios, have I been doing them? I copy & paste or type and then rewrite afterwards, I find editing easier if I can see what I am working from, so am I in the shite for this? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Copy/paste/rewrite is OK as long as the result is not close to the original.  Quoting is obviously sometimes necessary, as long as you aren't overusing the source.  There are two essays which are useful here (yes, they're essays, but they're linked from policy): Quotations and Close paraphrasing.  Have a look at these and you should be OK in future. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, thank you, and happy new year as more than likely from tomorrow I will be ruined. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And the same to you. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas present - a Black Kite

 * Thank you! Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Housekeeping Request
Hi, I think I mentioned I've been a regular at "List of scientists...." for a long time. I notice that many eds whose names are unfamiliar to me are simply saying "BLP viol" without any supporting discussion. In fact, for nearly all of them there is no evidence they can name a single person on the list, or are familiar with the material that allegedly supports their inclusion on the list! I know you pasted a link to a version with the names at the top of the AFD talk page, but I'd like to suggest you put a pin in another note at the bottom, and ask people who want to claim BLP VIOL cease making WP:VAGUEWAVE by backing up their assertion with a reference to a name on that list. Any names that are repeatedly brought up need to be hashed out on the talk page. Any names that are not brought up with specific discussion are not BLP problems.

Thanks for your thinking about it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made some replies on the AfD page. I won't be around for the next few days so please feel free to ping another admin if you think there's a major problem.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong version....
As every admin always does, you have protected the Wrong Version ;-). In general, I don't see a problem with that. But in the current case of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, you have also closed the WP:AN3 report. This basically endorses aggressive edit warring to make a point by giving the editor in question what (s)he wants. I find that not the best possible solution, as it sends a very wrong message to all concerned for the future. At least, I would expect a strongly worded letter to the editor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is an unusual case, though. If there is a possibility of the article containing BLP violations, then it is probably best that it is protected in the version that does not contain them.  Of course, this might not always be the same one that is a consensus version or the one that an editor is edit-warring to maintain.  Anyway, the protection period is short and I have linked at the AfD to the "full" version. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please take a look at the article's talk page? Editors are providing specific quotes from scientists on the list and DS is replying with clear IDHT. I think you've backed the wrong dead horse here. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't backed either horse here. Will have a look though. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to add my voice to those requesting that List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming be (preferably) unprotected, or at least restore the status quo content. A strong consensus exists on the talk page that Darkness Shines has failed to make a case for such a massive deletion of content. Essentially, this one editor has disrupted the integrity of the article with edit warring, forum shopping, and illogical arguments. The appropriate way to handle this would be for the challenging editor to lay out their specific case for each alleged BLP violation and for other editors to consider the arguments, and either uphold existing consensus, or reach a new one in support of the challenging editor. The current situation favors disruption and tendentious editing, and works against our collective purpose. Thank you.- MrX 20:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the AfD page. I won't be about for a couple of days now, so if a consensus does emerge that the page should be unprotected/reverted, please ping an admin to do that and point them towards this posting as a reason that I can't do so. As I said at the AfD though, I don't think it really matters whilst the AfD is in progress, as people are clearly not assessing the article in its current state. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See first. Happy new year, I am langers already Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)