User talk:Black Kite/Archive 84

Something to review
Hi Black Kite, I noticed you were on ANI, so I thought I might ask for you to review the PAs in Talk:Uyghur genocide before they spread.

Thanks, best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification of Dispute Resolution
Please note I have now taken the discussion at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) to Dispute resolution. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with unblocking two users

 * Hello. To request an unblock, copy and paste this onto your talkpage.
 * and replace "Your reason here" with the reason you wish to give for being unblocked. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On your talk page, not mine. I have copied them across. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that you put on the blocking user page.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it needs to be on yours. It's correct now.  You will have to wait for another administrator to come along and answer it. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it needs to be on yours. It's correct now.  You will have to wait for another administrator to come along and answer it. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:History merge
Sorry to say it like this, but I think you've messed up a bit at the page with the tables. All the previous history (and page protection too) is lost... You need, if I'm right, to follow the linked process. Also, the correct table was at the "All options, redux" section collapsed under point C, fwiw. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right about the protection - my fault, fixed now. The history looks fine to me?  I've fixed the table as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This reality TV thing is a bottomless pit of frustration and fancruft (the current example seems rather benign compared to some others: 1; 2 (ah the table again!); 3)... There's surely far worse ones, as far as I know. And well trying to change it seems like an absolute waste of time given what happens when such a change is attempted. Again thanks for your prompt actions. Now I can go back to playing chess against clueless people; or something, whatever. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha! I've not had anyone play the Bongcloud against me on lichess yet, and I play half a dozen blitz games a day. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated
Can I ask you for a small service? Can you either restore Template:Infobox former country/doc temporarily (for a discussion at Template talk:Infobox country)? if you'd rather not recreate it in template space it can go somewhere like User:RandomCanadian/sandbox/Infobox former country documentation (temp) or email me the source code so I can deal with that myself? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Let me know when you want it deleted again. Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have time to look it up right now so I've commented out the deletion template to avoid any incident; but when I'm done investigating this I'll tell you. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-English Wikipedia articles
You told me the other day that "A useful metric is to see how many articles in non-English wikis the article has." How does one go about such an inquiry? For example: How do I search all 321 Wikipedia languages to see which ones have an article on Babe Ruth or Rugby? Thanks in advance. PhillyHarold (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The method I use is to Google xxxxxx site:wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org replacing the xxxxxx with what you're looking for. A note, though - it probably won't find matches in languages that use alphabets other than the English one.  What I tend to do then is to Google xxxxxx site:zz.wikipedia.org replacing the zz with the country code - the major ones I usually go for are zh, ru, ja, ko and ar. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I find wikidata useful for these sort of questions. For instance, Rugby shows 117 different language entries. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Eddie and Kite, Thank you both PhillyHarold (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Eddie, where did "Q5378" come from? Thanks. PhillyHarold (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On any article page, click the "Wikidata item" link in the left hand menu. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sweet! Thanks! PhillyHarold (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Deletion Sorting ?
The link you posted to my talk page points to -> WP:DS, a page titled "Wikiproject Deletion Sorting". I am somewhat confused by the link but I understand your message, just where is the description of DS sanctions? Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page. Black Kite (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for stepping in at Talk:2021 Boulder shooting. The influx of right-wingers voicing their "concerns" over there was getting pretty concerning in of itself. Love of Corey (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Miss Grand International
Why did Wikipedia use the name Miss Grand insteads of using the name Miss Grand International Lady win (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is about the company, not the pageant. The pageant is non-notable and was deleted as such previously. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

But has not company name Miss Grand,has only name company  Miss Grand International company limited http://www.missgrandinternational.com/?page=contact_us Lady win (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

and why delete article pageants Lady win (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's not a notable pageant, it's a franchise. Black Kite (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * this time socialmedia is a talk about Miss Grand International, you say it's not a notable pageant it's not true Lady win (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request
Hello, sorry to bother you. Can you please remove Special:Diff/1016357189 and Special:Diff/1016357285? Thank you. -- Ashley yoursmile!  19:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:2950:3CD0:4477:7C16:B95C:5054
Ref WP:AN/I thread; you blocked this IP account for 31 hours for the repeated addition of unsourced content. Their block has expired, and they have returned to the same pattern of editing. They've also decided to engage in personal attacks for which I have warned them. No need to block them for that behavior as yet, but another block for repeating the same behavior that got them blocked the first time may be useful. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Blocked the /64 for a week. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Melbourne Tramcar Preservation Association
Hi! I think I've taken this as far as is possible. You mentioned when we last spoke that you'd prefer more detail. Alas, I don't think it has been covered in that depth outside their own site, although I was able to find some info about the restoration of a tramcar that was the first of its kind. If its current status doesn't work for you, I think I'm going to re-delete it. Until/unless it reopens and gets another major restoration, not sure this niche museum is going to get more mainstream love. Thoughts? Thanks either way. StarM 22:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, just wanted to ping you on this. Any further thoughts? Thanks!      StarM 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think it's actually OK. I've seen far more badly-sourced articles. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think some museums are just in that weird middle ground of "there isn't a ton of sourcing, but what exists can work to tell its story" due to the kind of RS that report on museums. We just had a similar conversation on Iridescent's Talk about schools and museums. Thanks again and have a good day!       StarM 13:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ack, in the interim, a mainspace article was created. Do you know anything about history merges? If not, I'll go to the Help Desk. Thanks! StarM 13:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've done one today already (see below!). Let me have a look. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, to make it easier, here's the best plan. Edit the mainspace article to include anything you want from the draft, and when you're happy with it, let me know and I'll merge the draft in.  If I do it now the draft will wipe out the current version as it's got later edits. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you! I'll watch and learn.      StarM 13:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

AN block review
Hi Black Kite, a partial block set by you is being appealed at the bottom of WP:AN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Recreation of article
Hello, as per Articles for deletion/Salute (2021 film) it was decided to draftify the article. But it has been recreated again. See Salute (2021 film). The filming of the movie has been completed. So I think the production has become notable. But it should be the original draft that must be moved into mainspace right? Can you advice me regarding what to do in such type of situations.? Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor copy-pasted it back into mainspace without attribution, so that's a copyright violation. I deleted the mainspace version, restored the draft version, and then merged in the (non-violating) edits.  So everything is done now. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Terminology around abortion
Hi Black Kite. We have a relatively new user who is changing the phrase "anti-abortion" to "pro-life" both within articles and in category names. I have told them we use the phrase "anti-abortion" on WP, but they're asking for proof, and... I can't find it. I've seen several other editors in the past also change pro-life to anti-abortion, with comments like 'per policy', but aside from years' old RfCs for specific articles, I can't find anywhere this policy/guideline is actually stated. Can you provide some direction? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

money shot?
I ec'd with your close of that thread, just throwing this on top for future consideration:
 * Digging a bit more, I've found that over at Commons, this user had multiple uploads deleted for invalid or missing licensing. On the other hand, the image I've just added was uploaded by Pratyush.shrivastava and then had all rights released via an email from it's copyright owner, YAI Foundation. I think that's pretty suggestive of a WP:COI at the very least. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting - an obvious COI there, but the deleted article nonsense is such obvious socking that they're going to need a very good explanation to UTRS. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not great, just throwing this in as another piece of the puzzle. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in DS Consultation
Hi Black Kite. I'm not sure if you're aware of the current community consultation around Discretionary Sanctions but as someone who has participated in DS related activities recently I'd like to invite you to participate. You have the opportunity to participate at whatever level you wish; there are questions that are higher level (theoreticaly) in scope as well as opportunities to give feedback about specific areas of DS. The consultation will run through April 25th and I hope you'll participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will have a look. Black Kite (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Stupid Post by FirstPrez
I normally don't approve of anyone other than a DRN volunteer removing anything from DRN, and then only malformed case filings that will confuse σ (that's a lower-case sigma). However, in this case it appears to me that you could reasonably have redacted it as RD3 (which would have raised issues as to whether to redact it in the other two harassment filings), so reverting it was a reasonable equivalent. DRN doesn't need reports of vandalism that look like vandalism themselves. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Please undo block
While I have no current plans to add anything, it is grossly inappropriate to block me for making constructive additions to Rose (singer), which were reverted incorrectly, apparently on the basis that I asked Paper9oll to stop abusing me. That's victim-blaming and encouraging stalking and harassment. Not on. This recent edit by Paper9oll is beyond a joke, and I ask you to revert it. Skb7 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet again, false accusations. Looks like user haven't the lesson yet. Please enforce more strict enforcement against user. If it's not possible, I would have no choice but to report this issue to higher authority since it is unlikely it would be solved at this level.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  04:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Stalking and harassment by User:Paper9oll
I have been stalked by User Paper9oll, who has been mindlessly reverting accurate information added by me on dozens of occasions. He has clearly set up a watch page to automatically revert everything I add, and, in spite of being proven wrong on dozens of occasions, he is still doing it. I note that you locked the Rose (singer) page in order to support his stalking and harassment. I just want him to leave me alone and let me edit in peace. I have not added anything false at all. His insistence on reverting things that have sources and are accurate is just nonsensical, yet he has done it on numerous occasions. Please can you undo the page lock. There was no vandalism on that page. I was inserting factual verified information. The vandalism was by Paper9oll. Thank you. Skb7 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I spilled water on my keyboard and it is hard for me to type, but he seems to be a revert-nazi. If in doubt, he reverts. The problem is that I am adding factual information and don't warrant such attention. Have a look at his user contributions for a moment. And, for the record, adding something once, and then re-adding it after he made a false claim about why he reverted it, does not constitute "constantly adding" something. He's a liar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Paper9oll Skb7 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Some examples of false accusations by Paper9oll against me:


 * - "Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)" - when I was inserting accurate information.


 * - "No where did the GWR source stated "How You Like That" is given "First artist to reach number one on a Billboard Global chart as a soloist and as part of a group (RW 16.1))" - even though it clearly states on Blackpink's page that How You Like That is the first and only Blackpink single to have reached number 1 on the Global 200. Paper9oll is lying...


 * - in breach of WP:3RR, he reverted me 3 times (I only reverted him twice). He claims that this belongs on Blackpink's page, but it actually doesn't, as the record is for first soloist and group member to top the Global 200, so it should be on Rose's page, but reference Blackpink, as I did.


 * Generally, I think that he just has no idea of this topic and is just being a bully.

It goes back further, and I will go to further disruption by this user against me (and I don't need to go into disruption by this user against others, as he admits to being a "recent-changes patroller" and he mass reverts every day on topics he has no knowledge of. Skb7 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Three times cannot be a bright line breach since editors need to make more than 3 reverts not only 3 for a bright line breach. Also you keep claiming stalking but you've only provided examples of one article. The editor says this article was on their watch list but in any case, with only a single article it doesn't really matter. At a minimum, wikistalking generally requires evidence of the editor appearing in multiple articles you've just edited, and articles they never edited before and are unlikely to have watch listed. Also editors are not really supposed to need knowledge of a topic to be able to assess if an edit is good or bad. They should be able to evaluate it by checking out the sources, like any reader. If they cannot, because sources weren't provided or because the sources don't support the edit, then that's most likely a bad edit. Even if the information is true editors should still provide a source. You may get odd exceptions e.g. paywalled sources or offline sources but ultimately complaining that a recent change patroller doesn't have knowledge of the articles they're patrolling doesn't make much sense. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Third time lucky I will try to go through the more examples before I get talk-page conflicts. There are DOZENS of examples of stalking and breaking 3RR while reverting accurate information. Skb7 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , as correctly says, you need a lot of specific evidence to make a claim of stalking (harassment). I'm looking at a few edits--after this one, reverting with "you missed the point" is just not productive. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There have been dozens. You could easily check. I guess it gets lost with him abusing everyone else too Skb7 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Some more examples of Stalking, harassment and incorrect reversions against me:


 * - Deleted a mass of accurate edits by me with sources. While they were later added on, there was no apology for being wrong, and he just keeps on doing it.
 * - What I wrote here was accurate and is in the current agreed-to version of the article. He was wrong. Never apologised. Just kept on mindlessly reverting.
 * - Another WP:3RR breach, once again by falsely reverting accurate sourced information. The source was in the other article, which I linked to (!)
 * Sbk7, you need to be much more mindful here, with your accusations and with your rather haphazard dumping of text, piece by piece, on an administrator's talk page, without regard for proper indenting and signing. And the edit summary for this edit strongly suggests they were not "mindlessly reverting"--looks like they were reverting mindfully. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Gah you're doing another edit conflict. I am doing this because it wiped my mass of edits previously. Please stop doing this! I am trying to link to it all! There's DOZENS of examples here but your edit conflicts are stuffing this up!!!! Skb7 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please compose your reply in your sandbox User talk:Skb7/sandbox, then copy and paste it in one go to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Skb7 you should provide these diffs on ANI not here. Also why do you say "another" 3RR breach? As I already told you 3 reverts is not a bright line violation since you need to make more than 3 reverts for that. So far, you've provided zero evidence of any 3RR breach so that could be construed as another personal attack. Finally that's a song by the same singer. Logically someone who is interested in the singer would also be interested in their songs and would quite likely have them watchlisted. I suspect the reason why you were on that article was because you are also interested in the singer. Running across the same editor in highly related articles isn't evidence of wikistalking. It's evidence of a shared interest. I strongly suspect if I checked the edit history, I'd find the other edit edited both articles, possibly even all articles related to that singer before you ever did. Please provide actual evidence of wikistalking or stop claiming it. Also while it's often good for editors to apologise, no one is ever going to be sanctioned for failing to apologise. Every editor makes mistake so an editor being wrong about something once is rarely a big deal. Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * He has had dozens of 3RR breaches, dozens of reverts with no decent recent, stalking, harassment and abuse, and now he is claiming they are "false accusations"! I am asking for help here. Are you seriously abusing me here???? Skb7 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Since you haven't stopped with the "stalking" accusations (and "revert-nazi" - really?!) I have blocked you from editing the article concerned. Telling me about edits from a month ago are pointless. Let me know when you are prepared to drop the accusations and abuse and discuss the situation sensibly. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Revert-nazi, as in someone whose entire set of use of Wikipedia is to mindlessly and incorrectly revert everything, then abuse people to justify it. Skb7 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am supposed to drop providing evidence to back up my factual claims? Please, look at them, and stop with this. This guy should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia really that bad to allow this? FFS Skb7 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please stop the edit conflicts FFS there are dozens and you aren't letting me post them. Skb7 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * - This one reverted a whole lot of work and he was wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. No apology ever. Skb7 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * - This one was queried (as it should have been, and, had they waited 2 days, it would have been proven to Wikipedia standards to be accurate). It would have survived AFD, but no, it was mindlessly reverted. Skb7 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The term "accusation" implies that what I said is false. Per above, it is plainly true. Once again, please can you block User:Paper9oll, who is clearly not interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and please can you reassure me that his stalking and harassing behaviour that he has exhibited towards me, as proven above, is not acceptable behaviour. It is not a good look AT ALL Skb7 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have reply through WP:ANI in regards to further accusations made against me. Once again, thanks you for the help.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  03:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free-vio
Template:Non-free-vio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 12:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)