User talk:Black Kite/Archive 86

Dhar Mann
Hi Black Kite, I was wondering if you could unsalt Dhar Mann? I recently rewrote Draft:Dhar Mann and was interested in moving it to article space. His YouTube channel has been covered much more since the past AfDs and your protection in July 2020, and I think that, in combination with coverage on his weed business, legal issues, and fraud charges, suggest notability. This NYT piece from last month highlights most of these aspects and links some other articles on him. Aranya (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

London Underground Driving Motor 3370 nominated for deletion
You prodded this article on 3 September. I have deprodded for the sole reason of including it in a batch AfD nomination of related articles, Articles for deletion/London Underground Driving Motor 3701, some of which have been previously deprodded. Your comments at the AfD are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

British Rail Locomotive 02 001
I see you've nominated my page talking about British Rail Locomotive 02 001 for deletion, but I just got a second notification telling me it's been reviewed, does that mean it isn't nominated anymore, also could you please tell me how to improve the article to prevent future articles on similar topics (which I plan to make a shed load of) from also being nominated for deletion, Thanks
 * Individual locomotives or vehicles are rarely notable, and will need multiple reliable sources discussing those individual vehicles in depth to sustain an article (not just mentioning their existence, as you could find that for pretty much any locomotive). I am sure you can understand why that is, given that otherwise we could end up with an article on every locomotive that has ever existed. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Isa Briones
Hi As per the comment at ANI, I propose to unclose and re-close this RfC as consensus for Option C. Please let me know if you have any major objections to this. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi BK, my apologies, real life (tm) decided to interrupt more important things like editing Wikipedia : )


 * As for the discussion, I guess the AN/I is now archived, but the fast answer is that as I look now, even if we are to ignore the discussion, I believe I see 6:6 (if we just count heads) I think I may have mistakenly counted Herostratus twice last time, but whatever. I think it's within the norms of closer discretion (normally I'd pull quotes from policy etc etc, but I think you're well aware of what I'm referring to). I could go more into why I said it was a weak consensus, and also about the edit history of the page etc etc, but again, I think you're aware of what has been going on. And I'm not going to bother addressing the histrionics towards me at this point - merely par for the course. Though someone should probably reinforce the idea to ATS that reverting a close they don't like in the way they did is not appropriate. I realise that a typical response could have been to WP:RBI, but, I decided not to (which I suppose is supported by the second to last paragraph on that page), and to bring the this before the community instead.


 * Anyway, if you would like to accept responsibility for the close and such, please feel free to revert and implement your own close. If you would like clarity on any of the above, please feel free to ask. Happy editing. - jc37 21:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI#Revert against consensus
Greetings, Black Kite!

has not edited since making this "report" and it has been four days. Should we continue to wait, or may I prevail upon you to correct a bad close? TIA. —ATS (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have left a note at their talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. —ATS (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User has used the bad close to revert to the false consensus. Action here would be appreciated. —ATS (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

George VI's titles & honours.
Howdy, Black Kite. Would you mind looking in at List of titles and honours of George VI & it's talkpage? Perhaps help out an IP, who seems a little confused about Wikipedia's rules. PS - I'm taking your advice, to assume IPs have good intentions. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are they being disruptive? At a quick look, it appears that they're removing unsourced material (I could be wrong here)? Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if they are or not. &  may have a better assessment of the situation. I do know, the IP's jumping back-and-forth between his IP & registered account, claiming techno problems. To be honest, it's kinda confusing what the IP is trying to accomplish. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is the registered account? KosomPolskii? I only ask as that account appears to be Polish and the IP geolocates to India. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the registered account. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged - don’t think there’s a major problem. They’re possibly slightly “over-enthusiastic” and unaware of policy but basically ok. Using both an Indian IP and a registered account (with a Polish handle) is slightly weird. Their explanation wasn’t particularly believable - i told them to either publicly link the two or stop using one. They removed that message so not entirely sure of their bona fides on that. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're waiting to see if he/she will comply. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Block Evasion?
Noted that Ifidont has an extended block on Ayurveda. On NPP, I encountered this page Glossary of Ayurveda which is incomplete, and in my estimation, a form of block evasion. You may wish to consider. Hope this helps. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I came here to note that as well, they created this article twice, the first time it was moved to Draft:Glossary of Ayurveda and then they recreated it and I moved it to Draft:Glossary of Ayurveda 2. Just thought you should know. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

rfc
Hello Black Kite, just to invite you to leave a comment / vote on this discussion Talk:Cardi_B. best regards. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Another disruption at User talk:Russel641
Hello, you may consider revoking Russel641's talkpage access since another disruption just occured on the talkpage of Russel641. See this recent edit from the talkpage. Regards. VictorTorres2002 ( talk ) 11:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

About the sources...
I understand that English Wikipedia uses secondary sources. Chartsinfos is one of them. What is more, reading, I understand that the site does not claim that there are errors: "The sales displayed on this site are in no way estimates. The cumulative sales over time for a disc can be mentioned. " = actual sales. If they mention margins, it would rather be cumulative sales. Which is logical. Obviously, the figures change every year. Moreover, the site apparently makes updates. I also read : Several thousand archives and various specific works are used to fill this site. It is a site devoted to the recording industry." Not to mention the fact that they solicit companies that manage copyright. Everything is indicated. I just saw the form to send the archives. Do you have see what is said and asked? "All documents will be closely scrutinized and may not necessarily be withheld." + they ask for the person's contact details and various criteria: if the person works in the recording industry, etc ... So there are checks both on the information and on the person giving it. Billboard, Cashbox, SNEP, aren't they reliable sources? Regards--Elenora.C (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In the end though, the site is effectively WP:OR - someone is taking information and performing calculations on it. If we can't see the data behind a statement such as the one in the source provided, we can't verify it (WP:V). (I'm not saying it's wrong, incidentally, just that there's no way of proving it from that site). Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for your reply. We can already see an overview of the sources they use. I think we can see that the site is serious. But having already written to them, because of the problem encountered on Spanish wikipedia caused by Prohacer, to have more details on their site, I could see that there were no calculations. They told me that they had to fight often to get the sales figures, because a lot of record companies were silent or lying. Here, we can see for example that they obtained information from ASCAP. Difficult to find sites of this kind on the internet. Because when you see the official websites of the artists, they all sold hundreds of millions of records and were No. 1 in the world etc... Regards --Elenora.C (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello!!
Hi, you gave me a source of a deleted article named "Cheerleaders (Captian Underpants)" around 7 years ago and moved it to your userspace, then deleted it when I was editing it. Could you somehow move the 2014 version of the article which I edited to my userspace so I can work on it? The cheerleaders from Captain Underpants are a major source of nostalgia to me, even though they are very obscure, and I'm planning on creating a series about them combining them with something else I also loved as a kid: Scooby-Doo. The cheerleaders and Brad Adams (a character from a Scooby-Doo movie called Mask of the Blue Falcon) are currently some of my favorite characters. Cheerleader2 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - at a quick look I can't find it - can you narrow it down for me? Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Albertaont
Hello, I noticed you have previous dealings with user:Albertaont over copyright violations and editorializing and enacted a block against them. The account hasn't edited since September 10, but a new account user:HaudenosauneeC started editing on September 16 and I'm almost certain they're the same person. I have had a couple recent interactions with them where they removed sourced content with misleading edit summaries. They're clearly an experienced user so I checked their editing history and noticed user:Albertaont on the same pages. Both accounts have recently edited the same pages such as Indian Removal, 2021 Kabul airport attack, and Mexico–United States relations with similar edits. Both accounts had issues with copyright violations and have very similar edit summaries. Some edits between both accounts are identical such as the addition of this content where they readded the same content : 1, 2. Albertaont was not banned for sockpuppetry so I'm not sure why they have seemingly switched accounts, and I wasn't sure where best to mention this but I thought it was important to let someone know. Cheers Nettless (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

God, I could murder a Cadbury's Flake
I suspect you may be the second WP editor who knows where I got my username from.

I first became aware of HMHB ca. 1986, when Peel played "Dukla Prague Away Kit". My reaction was - How did he know? (The kid with the Scalextric and Subbuteo was called Garth.)

Do you know the Lyrics Project site? Totally non-WP:RS WP:UGC of course, but entertaining, informed, and sometimes locating sources we can use. Narky Blert (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! I have contributed to the Project a number of times, indeed I was once awarded a Silver Biscuit Award for, er, something I did - though as it was under my real name I'll have to pass on saying what it was here :) Seen HMHB probably a couple of dozen times. I actually prefer their later stuff (now that's backwards from the usual...). Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You lucky bastard! I've never seen them live. I used to be known on that site as Acidic Regulator; but have more recently posted as Dickhead In Quicksand, a name I managed to snaffle before anyone else did. Narky Blert (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism by unidentifiable persons
Hello Black Kite, there is someone or a group of people who constantly delete my sourced entry on the article List of dictionaries by number of words and replace it with a unsourced (and later with a made-up source) entry. I reverted their edits multiple times, but looking after a time they had again deleted my entry and replaced it with their bullshit entry. Here is my last edit on this, which was again reverted by them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_dictionaries_by_number_of_words&oldid=1033786477. They don't use an account and I don't know how they can be stopped from doing this. I would be thankful if you could help me on this.

Thanks and best wishes, --Netanyahudi (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you get called away?
I think you forgot to actually block. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That was weird. I'm sure the block complete form came up correctly!?  Oh well. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies
That ANI thread, for want of a better phrase, pissed me off - that doesn't excuse me responding as I did, especially with this. I apologise ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, I was distinctly grouchy last night as well, clearly! Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

ARS mess
Howdy. Ya'll should open an RFC at Village Pump (proposals), with the question - "Should ARS be shut down . Such an RFC would determine the ARS' fate & expose editorial behaviour, if there's any bad behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Waste of time, will go the same way as the ANI thread. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's better then the Arbcom route. Ya'll should trust me on that. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Carley Shimkus
Ya ruled the AFD on Carley Shimkus as delete, but somebody made it into a re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Userboxes
I thank you for being civil towards me, concerning the topic of userboxes. It was a treatment, I wasn't a recipient of from others, in a discussion at WP:USERBOX, months ago :) GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Re : Repeated wrong edits in page
In the Administrators' noticeboard, on my query last month (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=1052273454#Repeated_wrong_edits_in_page), you protected the page from edits for 1 month, and said that 'neither of those figures is correct' citing PRS Legislative report (https://prsindia.org/budgets/states/west-bengal-budget-analysis-2021-22). However, from the same report you cited, it is clear that GSDP for 2020-21 (last completed Financial Year - all states data are updated based on 2020-21 numbers) is indeed what I had mentioned (13.54 lakh crore), and not what the repeat editor is claiming (16+). (Check - https://prsindia.org/files/budget/budget_state/west-bengal/2021/West%20Bengal_Budget_Analysis_2021-22.pdf). The projection of 15.1 lakh crore is for FY2021-22, which is not yet completed Therefore, I request you to accept the 13.54 figure and extend the page protection further, as the other member will update wrong 16+ figure after page protection expires. Yashmbzu (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've already said it's the correct figure. They won't be changing it after the page protection expires (or if they do, I will simply block them from the page - it's been said enough times and clearly enough). Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the article Kathleen Stock and AE
Regarding this diff. I am very much getting tired of it. It has been 5 or 6 reports now, without merit. I am seriously considering removing several people on both "sides" from the page for a month if this keeps up, I am just trying to figure out the best way to get a fresh batch of editors there. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

& Black Kite: I'm planning to open an RFC at the article-in-question, so as to bring in more participants & break the logjam. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear, I would prefer if we could skip the step of removing editors. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone forward & opened an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Editor violating tban
I was looking into a disruptive comment at the CNN talk page (which has become quite a honeypot for these things) and noticed that you'd tbanned the editor,, from post-1932 US politics back in 2019. Would you agree that this violates that ban? –dlthewave ☎ 01:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It does, and it seems HighInBC has dealt with it. I'll be honest, I had to go and look at the ANI thread, as I'd completely forgotten it. Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear
Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Marcorubiocali which is likely simple block evasion, but I started the SPI because it feels to me to be the start of a lot of this. Probably a sledgehammer to crack a nut though Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 10:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Spam Blacklist
Typo in. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 23:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gah! On my keyboard \ is Fn-Z and | is Fn-X. Appreciated. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I was going to give a sarcastic barnstar, but it seemed less funny when I actually went to do it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

mail
Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NFimageoveruse
Template:NFimageoveruse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Timmy96
In case you had not seen - User:Timmy96, who you previously warned in the [clearest possible terms not to add or re-add badly written trivia to articles, has returned to do exactly that, restoring their previous edits to five articles and adding a new ream of poor quality text to a sixth article. I reverted the additions but it seems clear that they are not going to stop behaving in this way any time soon. 82.132.215.64 (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for that. Unfortunately it looks like they are evading the partial block - see Special: Contributions/2A00:23C8:898A:AD00:65CC:AC52:E9E1:872E. That's the second IP that has been used to restore their edits yet again. 82.132.213.173 (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Protected them this time...  thanks for letting me know. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not sure why you've protected the articles with all of the poor quality material in place. I can't remove it now. 82.132.213.173 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't clock that you were an IP. I'll do it now myself. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I assumed it was not your intention to lock their edits in. I'd have taken them out myself but thought it better if someone else did. I'm not keen on making the same revert over and over again. 82.132.213.173 (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Quick check related to an AFD you closed
I had pinged you over at Talk:Blockchain related to recreating the article Blockchain game, which you as admin closed and merged before in 2018. Since then (and particularly over the last few months), there's been more information to justify a standalone article compared to what the 2018 article state was, and I wanted to get your okay before recreating it (I could have been BOLD, but just wanted to check). See Talk:Blockchain for details and (non-crypto-based) RS that are being used to justify this. --M asem (t) 14:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, absolutely. This was always going to be one of those subjects that eventually deserved its own article. Black Kite (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to a close
Give 'em enough rope has reached the end of the thread (some sort of pun intended). Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 17:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

John Trevena
Your revdel of 69 edits may have been too extreme on the John Trevena article. There was a discussion about the article and which parts were not appropriate. I question the revdel of too much because you have been quite vocal in your disdain for myself and others, especially the ARS - and that action did not seem to match the discussion. Perhaps you can ask another uninvolved admin take a look. There were quite a few minds discussing it after the blocked sock PSMG started the inquiry. I tagged you on the talk page but you did not respond. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even the very first revision of that article has BLP issues, especially the 2nd sentence of that "Personal Life" paragraph. This is a standard admin action.  Please feel free to raise the issue at AN if you believe there is a problem with that. Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, I am Persona non grata. If you will not look at your own actions I am out of luck. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did look at my own actions, since you raised them, and I didn't see a reason to change them. I think it's unfortunate if you don't believe yu can raise an issue that isn't anything to do with why you were sanctioned. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Concerning recent edit
Hi, I just saw the argument about Antiochia Christians on ANI, and had a look as it's a subject I happen to know quite well. I see there was lots of tedious edit warring and you were no doubt right to protect it. This revert of yours I found a bit more complicated. Parts of it consisted of badly sourced or unsourced content. Other parts were in fact well-sourced by reliable sources, and it's harder too see why those parts were removed. As the different edit warriors involved had fought over all of this, I can understand it's easiest to revert it all. Still, that seems to be a mistake. None of the edit warriors seem to be correct here, as some push unsourced material (but also include well sourced sections) and others remove everything (including removal of well-sourced content). If I may, it might be better to restore those parts that actually build on reliable sources rather than siding with side of edit warriors. Best regards Jeppiz (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - yes, I realised that might be the case, but as you've guessed, as I'm not au fait with the subject I just reverted it as it contained some obviously problematic issues. If you can let me know what should be restored (it's probably best to do that on the talkpage) then I'm quite happy to do so. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Kristen McGuire
Hello Black Kite. In 2017, you correctly closed Articles for deletion/Kristen McGuire as delete. However, since then I think this person has earned enough roles to now meet WP:NACTOR. Could you userify the deleted article? Thanks. Regards, Link20XX (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft:Kristen McGuire. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)