User talk:Black Kite/Archive 55

Lend us both a hand
Hello. You've already been made aware of what is going on and we both could use your helping hand. I'm having problems with the editor HMWD. Of course HMWD is going to make it look it its my fault and that I've been ignoring (which I haven't) but what he forgot to mention is that I've already explained to him why they don't belong there. It all started when HMWD added an expedition and a massacre to the list of wars involving Mexico. I explained to him in the edit summaries that an expedition and a massacre are not wars and don't belong to the list. I'm sure you understand why a expedition and a massacre doesn't belong. This would be the equivalent of adding the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Boston Massacre to the list of wars involving the United States. I don't want to edit war with him. We've already had an edit war before on the Border War because he insisted that Mexico and the German Empire defeated the United States in that war and kept changing it. It took us a while to resolve that and I guess ever since then he's had a personal vendetta against me because he won't listen. He seems to have created his profile just for editing on the Border War and List of wars involving Mexico with his own biased editing and doesn't show any signs of stopping. I was wondering if you could help and explain to him why a expedition and a massacre doesn't belong in the list of wars and end his behavior. He claims I've been ignoring him but we've been discussing the matter in my talk page. AbelM7 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The incidents i want to add are more relevant and fit better the criteria than many incidents already there. Why do you have a problem with the ones i want to add but not with the ones that are already there? HMWD (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And im not "making it look as if it was your fault" because actually is your fault. Everywhere you go you have problems with other wikipedians for the way you act. HMWD (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because they're not wars. And no, it actually is your fault. You're the one who added an expedition and a massacre to the list of wars. If you hadn't did that in the first place, this wouldn't be going on. No I don't have problems with other Wikipedians "everywhere" I go. Disagreements come up with a few but you're not always going to agree with everybody, whether in Wikipedia or in real life (you cannot say that you have never had disagreements with anyone in real life). I'm sure most Wikipedians have had someone they disagree with so I'm not a unique story. AbelM7 (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop saying that they aren't wars, half of the entries in the article aren't proper wars, and everybody has problems for the way you edit, that's unique to you, you are almost trolling now. HMWD (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not wars. They're an expedition and a massacre. It even say so in their title. No, not everybody "has problems for the way" I edit. That's a lie and you know it. Having disputes is not unique to me. I'm not a troll. I could say the same thing about you almost trolling since you seem to have created your page just to edit war with me on the List of wars involving Mexico article. AbelM7 (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Several entries in the article are not wars either, just minor conflicts and don't involve the government at all. And you started the edit war. HMWD (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Vern Hughes
I has to close as non-consensus because of the reasons I gave there. Someone should renominate so we can have a proper discussion. It would feel odd for me to do it after I closed; perhaps you would be willing ? 01:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto's abuse
If you had actually done your job by reviewing the Sellers talk page, my talk page, Cass' talk page and all of the edit summaries he left, then you would have seen how I've been harassed and abused by him for well over one month. But no, you were too lazy to look in to it. Whatever.  Caden  cool  22:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I hardly think Black Kite is lazy. Quite the opposite. Personally I couldn't give a flying monkey's left testicle what you generally do on here Caden on matters which don't concern me personally and have much better things to do with my time. I don't have anything against you, but I did comment once on how it seemed you were acting around Cassianto which ever since you've assumed I'm this great enemy of you and even turned up at the Paris talk page soon after to vote against Cassianto and myself. You insulted the montage I created for Paris which I thought was pretty decent and I think I have a very good eye for the visual and have often been praised for it. If you refrained from saying such things, and avoid having user boxes on your user page which make you look like a filthy immature little boy, then I'm unlikely to ever dream of saying anything and will stay well away from you. You were asking for it, and it was a light-hearted quip intended in good jest anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Christian
I noticed the Anthony Christian page was deleted as discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Christian

I believe this article has been wrongly deleted. A couple of points to bring up is firstly Bejnar noted he found several references to Anthony Christian Howard but not Anthony Christian. Anthony Christian was born "Howard Clanford". As he began his career he adopted the name "Anthony Christian Howard" and signed his paintings that way. "Howard" was eventually dropped and so he is known today simply as Anthony Christian. Most early articles will refer to him as "Anthony Christian Howard". Perhaps the article can be renamed to that, rather than deleted?

Also mentioned was magazine coverage, and the problem that the most notable would be before the electronic era. On the artists website is the "Publicity" section that lists various sources of independent publication on Anthony Christian, including Vogue, listed on the right hand side of the page. http://www.anthonychristian.co.uk/publicity.html

--Buddha83 (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Unnecessary articles that was forced to make as redirect pages Ramesh Nambiar and Devaraja Prathapa Varma which are movie characters with no notability or information other than their names in the Indian film Twenty:20 (film) created by some fans for promotional only. Instead of deleting, the pages are redirected to the main film article. And creator of Ramesh Nambiar is on semi edit war, reverting to his revision even without atleast a single source, shows it's strictly promotional. And one of the page Devaraja Prathapa Varma is fully protected indefinitely (LOL) by you. I don't see any sense in it. What the purpose of keeping these pages or redirecting and even protecting it. Thanks TheWikiBug (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Joseph "808" Derivé
I meant to check all the mentioned artists/songs etc articles to see if there's been any nonsense inserted individually into them, but it was deleted before I could do that. Any chance you can give me a temporary copy in my userspace so I can check it all? (I'll request deletion once I'm done). Neatsfoot (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here you go - User:Neatsfoot/808. Just ping me when you're done and I'll delete it again. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all done with it, thanks - I found one more hoax addition from it, plus another via a Google search (and I've watchlisted the relevant articles). Neatsfoot (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Christian
I noticed the Anthony Christian page was deleted as discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Christian

I believe this article has been wrongly deleted. A couple of points to bring up is firstly Bejnar noted he found several references to Anthony Christian Howard but not Anthony Christian. Anthony Christian was born "Howard Clanford". As he began his career he adopted the name "Anthony Christian Howard" and signed his paintings that way. "Howard" was eventually dropped and so he is known today simply as Anthony Christian. Most early articles will refer to him as "Anthony Christian Howard". Perhaps the article can be renamed to that, rather than deleted?

Also mentioned was magazine coverage, and the problem that the most notable would be before the electronic era. On the artists website is the "Publicity" section that lists various sources of independent publication on Anthony Christian, including Vogue, listed on the right hand side of the page. http://www.anthonychristian.co.uk/publicity.html

--Buddha83 (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

DS talk
Thanks for the semi - was about to find someone. No idea about the allegation, and do not particularly care. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PREJUDICE listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PREJUDICE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:PREJUDICE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

The Ro ANI
You marked the ANI for Roscelese as stale. This is a recurring problem. The editor had another ANI for edit warring that was started only days before that one (and disappeared for reasons unknown). She was engaged in several edit wars while the ANI was pending. The editor has a record of violating blocks and protection on the same subject matter going back, apparently, years.

For no admin to act basically gives her a license to edit-war at will and ignore community blocks and protection -- indeed, she seems to be about to resume a few more edit wars in the subject area.

What has to happen for someone to act? Djcheburashka (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for dubious accounts with dubious targets to stop edit-warring with her? Just a thought. Black Kite (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've requested the ANI be closed on WP:ANRFC and on the ANI itself after pointing out continued reverting of Roscelese's edits .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits
The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:
 * Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
 * The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
 * Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Question
Am I allowed to know the account name which this block evasion applies to? Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This revision seemed to get through. At last look. Thanks.—John Cline (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that one got missed. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. As an aside; do you mind if I borrow 99% of your toolbox?—John Cline (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice page... I will use it. Chillum 17:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I nicked parts of it from somewhere myself. Careful though, parts of it may well be out of date, I've had it for years. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop
In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Deletion review for Luxembourg Commercial Internet Exchange
On October 10th 2014, at 07:51, you deleted the page of "Luxembourg Commercial Internet Exchange". Would it be possible to let me know the reasons of the deletion ? With these informations, I will be able to modify the page so it won't be deleted again. Thanks. --Lola2012 (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, it was deleted because of this discussion. The main problem was that it didn't have any sources to show why it was notable.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Lola2012 (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. Would it be possible to restore the page, so that I will be able to add sources ?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Page name. 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. Lola2012 (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ==Deletion review for Page name==

Please note . ..
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&curid=18253101&diff=638462397&oldid=638462049. . . this] December 16 bolding (edit summarized as "upgrade") of an almost year-old comment. The original edit was part of a cluster of persistently harassing behaviors towards another user that earned a block. As the bolded edit ends with "Watch this space" you might think it advisable to do so by watchlisting the page and checking now and then on the user's future contributions. Happy holidays :) Writegeist (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm has resumed BLP violations
User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm, after being automatically unblocked when the block put by you expired, has resumed his disruptive edits by adding unsourced material to biographies of living people:. He readded and expanded a info that had be added before: 212.104.107.20 (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

your block of Nolins78
Please add talk page access to your block of Nolins78 for continuing the personal attacks that he was blocked for. Meters (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake. That one was another sock. Meters (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2014

The only dumb question
Is the one never asked; I've been told. So: I am simply curious; as to if there is a back story related to your username? Having seen you around, considerably, I've wondered how, perhaps, your kite came to be black?--John Cline (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Very simple, actually - it's named after the bird. I do a bit of falconry in my spare time and at the time I created the username I'd been spending a lot of time flying a couple of BKs. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is helpful perspective, and I must say, your version is much better than the black manlifter I imagined flying about to keep peace. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you have any suggestions?
A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "oppose". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again (which I am not planning to do anytime soon, but might consider in the future). For a better sense of my work and activities around the project, I invite you to consider reviewing my userpage, my talk page archives (which are not redacted), to watchlist my talk page, or use edit analysis tools like Wikichecker, content.paragr, dewkin, xtools-pages or xtools-ec (which in theory should work as of late 2014...). I would be more than happy to talk about your concerns over Commons (and I do agree this project has deep issues), but I'd like to start by assuring you I am totally fine with keeping local copies; my primary concern is to make images which are currently only available on English Wikipedia also available on other projects (as long as there are no copyright concerns). Thank you for your time, (PS. If you reply here, I'd appreciate a WP:ECHO or talkback ping). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting!
Hi, Just wanted to say thanks for reverting - I saw this thread and thought I'd better test it ....Didn't think it'd stop me reverting (I actually assumed reverting would be fine!)

I won't do that again in such a hurry! - Thanks again,

Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year :)

Regards, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)