User talk:Black Kite/Archive 93

December greetings
Thank you for your ITN work! - Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. - I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Black Kite!


Happy New Year! Black Kite, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Wow!
Thank you for diff/info. I had missed the name's significance ~ indeed, the whole referenced discussion entirely; makes me feel a bit of a fool even taking the time to formulate my questions and hope CW might be redeemable for us. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 13:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Full protection durations
Hi Black Kite. I noticed that you seem to be using somewhat longer full protection durations when dealing with edit warring compared to what I'm accustomed to seeing (and what I've inferred from WP:PREEMPTIVE which is a bit vague). I wanted to ask if the common practice differs on WP:ANI and WP:ANEW compared to WP:RFPPI where full protections are generally a week or less. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a long running issue at this page, but you will also note that I have said that the protection can be reduced at RFPP if necessary . Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Kind Request for Consistency in Wikipedia Articles
Recently, I made edits to the GDP-related estimated figures for the year 2024 in the India article, which were reverted with the note, 'Reverted good faith edits by King Ayan Das (talk): 2024 figures are predictions and fail WP:CRYSTAL.' I understand and respect Wikipedia's policy regarding predictions, and I appreciate your vigilance in maintaining article quality. However, I've noticed similar estimated GDP figures for 2024 in the Bangladesh article. In the interest of maintaining consistency, could we consider revisiting the approach to these figures in both articles? If it's not too much trouble, could you please check it? Your attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated. King Ayan Das (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

ADD MORE SOURCES is an actual change.
"Please present actual changes that you think should be made" I DID THAT.


 * No, you didn't. Actual changes means "X part of the article is wrong - it should be replaced with Y", or "Z needs to be added", or "Q is false - it needs to be removed". And all of these suggestions need to be backed up with the reasons why that is the case, and reliable sources. We're not picking on you - but contentious issues like this need to be covered neutrally. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * SOURCES need to be added, and the REASON WHY is because sources have been deleted, and the entire POV of the article has been ripped apart since 2015 to change the article to nothing but criticism. GalantFan (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you keep repeating this very general point ad nauseam. But you don't point out what the problems are.  Which parts are wrong?  What can be done to make it right?  What sources support these changes? Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Southern Pacific 4451


A tag has been placed on Southern Pacific 4451 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at []. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TarnishedPathtalk 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Appeal to blocking decision
Hello. I hope your New Year is off to a great start. I am replying to your blocking me with this statement:

"I have blocked User:Editaddict from the article as they obviously have a problem with NPOV and COI. I have also blocked the IP. I have protected the article to admin-only for a while, but am amenable to reducing that if there is a reasonable RFPP request. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your years of service on Wikipedia as it is a great resource. I must confess that I am new to editing on Wikipedia and am a bit confounded by my experience here. I have been a professional editor for many years and have never been treated the way I have been treated here.

1) When I took the suggested edit to the Talk Page, no one responded for 5 days even though they had been rejecting my simple edit and not giving valid reasons. Therefore I noted on that page that I was going to add the edit since no one objected. Then two editors reverted my edits again without valid reasons. One of them got their facts wrong about my suggested edit and the content of the article I was referencing. The other person just made a judgment without any reasoning or answering how my edit violated the WP:NPOV. They were ganging up on the reverts so they wouldn’t violate the three revert rule.

2) I do apologize for not understanding the three revert rule. I thought it was three reverts of an individual.

3) I would appreciate more help from other editors and admins instead of only objection and condemnation. They showed no desire to discuss the application of WP:NPOV and my suggestions. Can you please explain to me how I violated WP:NPOV?  No one has done that yet. I am very encouraged by WP stance on NPOV. But this behavior leads me to suspect the other editors are not truly interested in WP:NPOV. Then when I received your admin judgment, it was more of the same. You only made an accusation and did not contact me to hear my side of the story nor help me understand how I had violated WP policy. I am open to hearing that.

4) You mentioned you are open to a reasonable RFPP request. Please tell me how to do that. A search for RFPP on WP resulted in this screenshot:

Thank you for your consideration. I am eager to learn and committed to the highest principles of editing. Editaddict (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have blocked you from the ICC article, but you may still make suggestions for edits to the article on the talkpage. The RFPP issue is not really relevant to you as that was aimed at stopping disruptive IP addresses from editing the article.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite IP blocks
Hi, BK, I was looking through the list of IP blocks for unrelated reasons, and I saw a few recent ones of yours (specifically Special:Contributions/2601:18f:380:4880::/64, Special:Contributions/39.44.128.0/20, and Special:Contributions/155.186.175.230) are marked as indefinite. Were these intentionally indef? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. They're only partial blocks from one article and all of them are LTAs. I suppose we could change them to a (long) fixed time but I wouldn't unblock them any time soon. Black Kite (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly fussed about them, so if they were intentional, I don't mind leaving them be (though I will note that the two ranges are full-blocked, not partial-blocked). They just caught my eye as I was looking at the list. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see the two ranges are only Pblocked (from Honda Concerto and ICoC)? I am on my phone though so might not be able to see everything.Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, you're quite right, I'm sorry! Completely misread the block log entry. Feel free to ignore me and carry on :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

user talk:KevinNov3
requests unblock. Looks good. OK to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

1985
Thanks for fully protecting the page. That sort of administrative action is needed. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Can an account be blocked simply for article creation?
Good evening,

As above, I'm querying if it's possible for an account not to be blocked from editing entirely but simply from article creation. There's a user I've come across who has a habit of creating new articles in main space as though it's sandbox. They're typically extremely barebones with little to no sourcing, and the user has a habit of creating the article and immediately moving on to something else. I want to say it's a competency issue rather than any nefarious purpose, but it's moved on to controversial and potentially BLP related topics.

Given this, I'm wondering if there's a way to block accounts from article creation and if so (and simply asking an admin isn't suitable), where should I take this issue?

Regards, Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's not possible to do that apart from partial-blocking them from article-space completely. Having said that, if the user is creating BLP issues then I would simply take the issue to WP:ANI, because that's clearly a behaviour issue. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite thanks for the reply. I've put in an ANI about the user (and further updated it). At this point the BLP-violating actions have quite obviously become flagrant, so hope it's resolved ASAP.
 * Regards, Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Asking for block of 190.235.38.202
This user has been vandalizing multiple pages and attempting to edit war.See the history on article El Chavo Animado &#39;&#39;&#39;dvro 💎&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Emily Willis
As the admin who fully protected Emily Willis because people kept adding a TMZ report about an alleged drug overdose, you may be interested in this discussion. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Catalonia

 * What have you reverted the edits on Bonmati and Putellas for? So correcting grammar and removing unnecessary obvious info is a crime now? Rubenaf16 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You gave no reason for removing the completely correct information about their origins. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, drat. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Surprising?
Apparently, is still right about everything. Who knew? Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * And verbose? &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion Re-opening
I am not objecting the decision but I would like to know if it is against the policies for the closer to be engaged in the discussion because I read this in WP:CLOSE: It is unusual for anyone to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor unless the discussion has been open for at least one week. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 17:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Restoring vandalism by mistake
Hi. I don't know if you realize that you restored vandalism here. As you can see from the original edits by this IP, he removed images, replaced Moroccan riots for "Morocco's win" (the controversy was that they rioted, not that they celebrated their victory in the game) and added a POV commentary on "Israeli apartheid and war crimes" which is not in the sources.Bargagepla (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I was merely removing an edit by a sockpuppet. If an extended-confirmed editor in good standing wishes to restore that information, they may do so. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please consider reducing the protection level of Emily Willis
Greetings! You fully protected Emily Willis for a month on February 9. Since then, a number of apparently valid requests have been made on the talk page, which could more easily be fulfilled if the protection level were lowered to semi-protection. I would prefer not to be the sole clearinghouse for such requests, as no other editor with admin rights appears to be responding to such requests. BD2412 T 04:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted not edited, the first log entry has an unsourced claimed real name that shows up in the log when you look at the history. The sourcimg remained just as crap as it was when it was deleted in 2022. Spartaz Humbug! 09:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that Black Kite should delete it? If not, you are welcome to make an AFD nomination. I think it would likely be kept given the current controversy. BD2412  T 14:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fair to say our views divulge as no reliable sourcing has actually emerged but I did not advocate that. I was thinking more that clean up is required including some revdel is needed but it's protected. I trust BK to act appropriately. Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking in terms of potential sources rather than the article as it was then. I have added several within the last few hours. BD2412  T 20:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you editing a fully protected page? Spartaz Humbug! 13:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When I initially sought to update the page, I was not aware that it was fully protected. I quickly self-reverted when I became aware of the controversy. Aside from responding to one edit request to fix a grammatical error, my edits were after the protection had been lifted. BD2412  T 15:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Notification of discussion
There is currently a discussion at Featured picture candidates that may concern you. Choliamb (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Harton Academy
Hi, I wonder if you could let me have the benefit of your thoughts on the best way to try to resolve the situation on Harton Academy.

My feeling is that we have a disruptive, edit warring, SPA editor who isn't prepared to back down or to listen to others.

I've tried to create some kind of space on the talk page to allow positive resolution of some of the issues, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Any suggestions gratefully received... Axad12 (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

TFA
The discussion of your delinking of North East England on the TFA has continued and it looks to me like there is consensus to restore the link for the reasons stated by in that discussion. I'd appreciate it if you'd read that thread for the further concerns I expressed. Thanks for your help. Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 11:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Mass removal and deletion of a category
Why did you depopulate 92 articles from Category:Countries of Voice of Global South before unilaterally deleting it?

–LaundryPizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 19:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sudan
 * Iran
 * Equatorial Guinea
 * El Salvador
 * Algeria
 * Bhutan
 * Bahrain
 * Chad
 * Nepal
 * Oman
 * Albania
 * Angola
 * Antigua and Barbuda
 * Armenia
 * Bangladesh
 * Barbados
 * Belarus
 * Belize
 * Benin
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Burundi
 * Cambodia
 * Cameroon
 * Cape Verde
 * Central African Republic
 * Chile
 * Costa Rica
 * Cuba
 * Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * Djibouti
 * Ecuador
 * Egypt
 * Eswatini
 * Ethiopia
 * Gabon
 * Georgia (country)
 * Guatemala
 * Guinea
 * Guinea-Bissau
 * Guyana
 * Haiti
 * Honduras
 * Ivory Coast
 * Jamaica
 * Kenya
 * Lesotho
 * Liberia
 * Libya
 * Madagascar
 * Malawi
 * Malaysia
 * Maldives
 * Mauritania
 * Mauritius
 * Moldova
 * Mongolia
 * Mozambique
 * Myanmar
 * Namibia
 * Nicaragua
 * Niger
 * Nigeria
 * North Macedonia
 * Panama
 * Paraguay
 * Peru
 * Republic of the Congo
 * Rwanda
 * Saint Kitts and Nevis
 * Saint Lucia
 * Senegal
 * Serbia
 * Seychelles
 * Sierra Leone
 * Somalia
 * South Africa
 * South Sudan
 * Sri Lanka
 * Syria
 * São Tomé and Príncipe
 * Tajikistan
 * Thailand
 * The Bahamas
 * Togo
 * Trinidad and Tobago
 * Tunisia
 * Uganda
 * Uruguay
 * Venezuela
 * Vietnam
 * Zambia
 * Zimbabwe


 * @LaundryPizza03 Because the article it depended on (written by an editor now blocked for multiple edi warring, including reinserting this category) was deleted as a copyvio and it was therefore not mentioned in the articles at all. No problem restoring them if the article can be rewritten. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI post
Hi there! You forgot to sign your post in the current Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents thread so I can't reply to it, but it's a valid point that should probably be raised on one of the Talk pages for Liverpool or Liverpool City Region. Thanks! Orange sticker (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Economy of West Bengal
Hello, can you please check out this user: Sweety943? Has been repeatedly changing economy figures without source in multiple economy articles. Has already been warned by multiple editors for the same issue. Shubhrojeet (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)