User talk:Black Kite/Archive 62

Issue with editor
Hi there. I'm writing you because you seemed very clear with this warning.

You are the third administrator in just a few months to caution this editor about this (see, , ).

I left message on this editor's talk page here because it appears this editor went into an article and stripped part of it of its references here. I asked this editor why they did that, but my question to the editor on their talk page was first deleted, then unanswered.

Today, this editor has continued to add unsourced content to articles, with the edit summary "as listed in bmi" (see ). When I removed the unsourced content, it got reverted.

I edit a lot of rap music articles, and many of them are a mess. After I created Kodak Black, which gets 5,177 views per day, it became a huge struggle trying to keep unsourced content off the article. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable in asking other editors to add sources to their edits. Usually it's not an issue, but this editor seems outright defiant to the point that they now appear to be removing sources added by other editors.

Thank you for your help with this. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have final warned them. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * After this editor responded to your final warning they made this edit. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This editor is continuing to add unsourced content to articles, even after your "final warning". I'm tired of cleaning up after this editor, and I really don't think another "final warning" is going to change behavior.  Please do something.  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Both and I also warned him. Over the last few weeks, his responses to being warned about unsourced content have become ludicrous. It's common sense, "It'll show up, trust me", and my personal favorite where they claim that since they added a source on a different article, they don't need to add one there. I'm sure you are aware that there was an ANI involving Xboxmanwar back in I believe August where I proposed he be topic banned from the music business broadly construed and required to successfully edit in other areas for 6 months with a mentor prior to appeal. Still think that's a good idea. He does a bunch of yeoman work in music, but he's too intimate with the subject to retain perspective.  John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We have one way
Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ahn
Hi! I've answered all the feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know, in the event you are interested in reviewing and responding. ScooterSponson (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A concern
Would you have a moment to look at the edits of "Rtjfan"? This is an active editor with over 4,500 edits, almost all to pop music articles. What concerns me are edits like this, where an article that had twice been redirected for lack of notability is re-created by filling it with unsourced material. Every edit I looked at by this editor was without a source, and edit summaries are never left. This editor's talk page is filled with warnings. Are you able to look at this, or you prefer I report at ANI or elsewhere? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that I took this to ANI. Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, perhaps you could have a look at this edit. Thank you again.  Magnolia677 (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

AFD closure
I'm curious about how you came to the conclusion to close Articles for deletion/John Sargent Pillsbury, Jr. as "no consensus" -- can you provide details how you came to that conclusion and what the determining factors were?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there's certainly no consensus to delete the article (5-2 Keep), but I was a little concerned that too many of the Keep votes simply referenced WP:ITSNOTABLE. On the other hand, I do now notice that the article was improved immensely during the AfD (something I hadn't taken into account), and so I am going to change the outcome to Keep. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reconsidering!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Black Kite
A rare voice of sanity. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Mirbeau
Saw you were quoting Mirbeau up above. This led me to look at Octave Mirbeau and Octave Mirbeau. The French article is much longer than the English, though it's hard to know if the quality is enough to justify it. There might be an opportunity here to expand the English version. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does look a bit sparse, doesn't it? I'll have to have a look at it when I get some spare time. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Userpage
Did you mean to create a redirect to this talkpage? Right now, the page redirects to itself. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Doh! Thanks Brad. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin board
I am not sure we share the same definition of uncivility. Polentarion Talk 16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly not. But then life would be boring if we all thought in the same way. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me say I sort of annoyed about the way the complaint was being dealt with. "Lying like crazy" or "brown nosing" is way beyond anything in WP:CIVIL. Is that sort of discourse regarded as being normal in the meanwhile? If that is your preferred sort of entertainment, I opt for being bored. Polentarion Talk 18:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Concerns

 * Concerns about misrepresenting sources to remove "far-right", adding bizarre image to the article, and personal attacks and violations of WP:NOTFORUM with this.
 * Bizarre irrelevant image now added across two articles.
 * Violating WP:NPOV with change of section title.

What's the next best step here? Would it be a warning prior to AE in the form of a discretionary notification ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Previously and  and . Sagecandor (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The best next step is to mind your own business and stop going around my back trying to get me in trouble. I only found this by looking at your contributions and this is a significant breach of WP protocol.  I'm a bit fed up with your edit warring as is everyone on the page from what I read.  Even Neutrality has asked you to stop harrassing him with your constant attention grabbing pings. SashiRolls (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Third opinion from previously uninvolved editor summarily disregarded here. Difficult to make progress with that behavior. Sagecandor (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi both, yeah this is not a conversation to have on a random admin's page; stick to the noticeboards please. The protocol for reporting editors at AN, ANI and AE is pretty well documented. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, any other advice before going to a noticeboard? Which one would be best? Sagecandor (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If an editor has been warned about discretionary sanctions and is still being disruptive, then AE; for most other serious editing issues - not content disputes - then ANI. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced edits
Most of my edits are to small towns in the southern US, adding photos and cleaning up articles, but a while back I created the article Kodak Black, which necessarily led me into editing articles about rap musicians (Kodak Black gets an astounding 8,732 views daily). Unfortunately, nearly all of my edits to those music articles involve reverting vandalism or removing unsourced content. I think it's a younger group of editors who work on the rap articles, and although most are very hard working and are excited to improve the articles, some editors appear particularly oppositional to adding sources to their edits (to an extent far greater than on an article about a hamlet in Mississippi). Occasionally, some editors simply refuse to properly source their edits, and the cleanup is extensive. Would you have a moment to look at my comment here? You've been helpful with this in the past, and I'm always reluctant to go to ANI. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've left another warning, hopefully this one will work - I do get the impression that this is an editor that does want to improve the articles, but is simply a bit too hasty in doing so. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Aimee Osbourne
Ok, so I just wrote an article about her, not realizing there was an old AFD from 2012. It looks like you closed this. In the time since then, she has begun her own musical career and been featured in Rolling Stone and other mainstream sources, so I think the question of notability is pretty well satisfied. Do you think you could undelete and merge the prior history with the new article (assuming it's worth doing so)? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest there's not really anything in the deleted history that's worth saving, especially as it's now four years out of date. I'd just stick with what you've got. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsalt hangry
Don't know if you're the one that salted hangry, but since you're the last one that deleted it I'm coming to you. Could you unsalt it and create it as a redirect to Hunger (motivational state)? The term is recognized by Merriam Webster and OED, among others, so I think it at least deserves a redirect. Although I notice our article on hunger (motivational state) doesn't currently mention the phenomenon, which perhaps it should. Lizard (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Strange Exotic Potato
Just for the record, the editor who made this request to you was utterly talking out of his/her ass in accusing me of coordinating some sort "attack" on the SPLC article. I had/have absolutely no clue as to the internet references he was making but everybody has access to the things that are said here. Motsebboh (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Oh! This is why I know the Potato was talking about me: Motsebboh (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In reality I accuse 629e91 and his buddies (see the last section of my talkpage, which contains the quote: "...if you are one of them"), that is why that comment was worded so carefully. "you seem to get a lot of attention from" is not the same as "you are"... I discovered 629e91 by Googling your username, because he had quoted something you wrote. The link between you and 629e91 makes me very suspicious, but there is no proof that you are 629e91. 629e91 has also quoted MarkBernstein, but MarkBernstein is not the same person as 629e91. Same goes for Binksternet and others. Your opinions about Gaffney, feminism and Sommers seem to be quite similar to those of 629e91. You can Google your own username or you can look here: http://imgur.com/a/vTo39 -- See also http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://8ch.net/gamergatehq/res/309156.html and http://www.webcitation.org/6mzBiN5Mw and http://archive.is/https://8ch.net/gamergatehq/res/309156.html (anyone can fake a screenshot, but only the admin(s) of 8chan could fake those archived links). I do not own a time machine and I do not control 8ch.net or archive.org or webcitation.org or archive.is. Webcitation.org and archive.org did not allow me to archive the google query results, but archive.is did! http://archive.is/Y6PlB & http://archive.is/awzw2 This proves that all 3 screenshots are real (the only other option is that I own a time machine and control 8ch.net). Google your own username and you'll find it too. See also WP:DUCK and AGF is not a suicide pact. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. it turns out that Wikidrama General was not a nick but a name of a section of the site. p.p.s. This is pretty much all I can post publicly about this, but if Drmies is curious I can give Drmies some more info, in Dutch, after I have confirmed their identity.

Stryker and MFT
Hello thanks for your help, I wanted to know why the page Stryker and MFT was closed and relisted after 3 weeks of deletion review.Wikipedia clearly states that after two weeks and not enough consensus the page should be relisted or moved. There was clearly not enough consensus from the main contributor and the other two contributors had no reasoning except re listing the deletion review. The ending contributor marked as delete with not enough consensus to dispute the facts. Please help, I appreciate it, and I'm new to Wiki. Johny5000 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Johny5000 I want to first say thanks for even replying and listening to what I have to say, I feel like a failure to be honest. What I find is MTV's contributors are the ones who gather the facts from online sources, not mainly just Facebook. On the MTV link listed and on their site it states, "This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form." The contributors seem to gather the information themselves and state what's factual to the Hip Hip Community as MTV is a reputable source with a reputation to keep and you can not submit the details yourself or create an account. The Link also provided on the Stryker and MFT page contributed by AXS.com is a highly reputable source. AXS.com is an AEG owned company and one of the biggest Record Labels in the world, second to Livenation, you can not create an account for their site as a contributor , you must work for them. When you look up Stryker and MFT or Stryker & MFT on Google, Safari , or Firefox, you get over 60,000 Backlinks to them. it's hard to go through them all so apologize.Johny5000 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Johny5000
 * There were two votes to delete it and clearly no reliable sources. MTV isn't a source here, because their page is copied from Stryker and MFT's own Facebook. Black Kite (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Arisen sock
Hi Black Kite, a happy new year to you. Please see Sockpuppet_investigations/GaryFG8125 for evidence of a newly arisen sock. Hopefully I've got the process right! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles by the new editor who writes about BBC personalities
I'm sad to see they still haven't responded. I set about seeing if I could save a couple of the articles; I note others have done bang-up jobs on a few. Jason Callender appears to be hopeless notability-wise, unless someone with better access to British newspapers can save it. But I have serious qualms about this one. There's a single good source that reveals too much, to my mind. My instinct is that it should be speedied if possible. Do you or an admin talk-stalker agree? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've redirected it to the article on the show he appeared in. It's either that or deletion. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Callender, I think few would disagree—unless there is a trove of British news coverage I can't see. But it's the other one that gives me BLP qualms. Follow my 2nd link. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Skippa da Flippa
It's possible that I'm incorrect but I believe you were the deleting administrator for the page Skippa da Flippa, I have updated Draft:Skippa da Flippa with more notable & reliable sources and have added actual content to the page aside from just a discography. Now there's some actual reading, I think it's ready to be undeleted. Trying to get someone to review and I think you might be the person to do so. If that's the case I'd like to ask that you please take the time to review this page as it's been prevented from being created for over a year (don't know who originally created it) but now it should have enough content to be considered noteworthy. Cheetoburrito (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

New editor creating unreferenced BLPs redux
has since been indeffed by and has still not edited their talk page. After noticing they edited exclusively on mobile and using the mobile interface, I have asked at Village Pump:Technical how practical it is for them to see the notification of talk page messages (answer, quite reasonable) and to then find out how to edit their talk page (not sure from the answers whether that's comparable to using a desktop). Meanwhile, I notice we now have another new editor with a very similar pattern: TD213. This editor got welcomed, but has also not yet edited their talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked per WP:DUCK, thanks. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Cllean up in aisle five...
Well, User talk:Keznen anyway- last couple of edits befor TP access was revoked are pretty fruity. Cheers! O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi.  18:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)