User talk:Black Kite/Archive 94

2014 Isla Vista Killings
Can I ask what is wrong with the edits I did? A lot of the sources were unreliable, a lot of information was missing and outdated, and it just needed to be updated. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how Rodger can't be notable. He is the one who shot the incel community into the mainstream and has made people inspired to do attacks like his almost ten years later. There are multiple articles talking about his mental health    and Rodger's rampage also inspired and made women talk about sexism and misogyny and stared the hashtag #YesAllWomen. . He also caused the hashtag #NotAllMen, where men said they didn't have the same viewpoints like Rodger and wouldn't murder women because of it. . They also looked into his online life and how he was racist, hated women and talked bad about them, and was already looking to murder these poor college students. His rampage also brought forward more calls for gun control and inspired multiple laws that are now enacted. Also talked about how mental health sources needed to be updated as well. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You might want to review the previous discussions at the various talk pages, and also WP:BIO1E. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand about needing a discussion for making an article on Elliot Rodger, but why do I need a discussion when updating the article by adding reliable sources and information that was missing on the 2014 Isla Vista killings article? A lot of the sources like IMBD on the article are unreliable and the article is messy. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because there were previous discussions that suggested it didn't need a separate article (indeed, the redirect was protected at one point because people kept reinstating it). If you don't have a discussion about it, people are going to keep on redirecting it because that was the status quo.  Notability isn't an issue here - it's merely where the information on Rodger should be. Black Kite (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I started a discussion and will see where it heads. I was just asking about the 2014 Isla Vista killings. I wanted to update the information and remove unreliable sources, but you said that also needed a discussion. I was just wondering why I needed to talk with editors about updating the article.Shoot for the Stars (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are unreliable sources in the article it is fine to remove them (well, replace them) just make sure your edit summary is clear. Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to but you reverted all my edits and said in the edit summary. “Hang on, we need a discussion about this. The article has been stable for some time.” So I’m just asking you why I need a discussion to make the article better? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Does this violate a policy/guideline or am I over reacting?
Hello, I ran across the user page of a few days ago and noticed a few things that seemed like they may not be allowed on a users page but didn't want to rush to one of the noticeboards without confirmation.

The user page is mainly a link repository, and further down is mostly gore and porn links. While I could care less what people look at on their own it doesn't seem like it should be linked on a user page. Is this a WP:UPNOT issue, or are user pages for whatever a user wishes to keep on them and granted more freedom?

I appreciate any help or advice you could give, and thank you in advance.

Awshort (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not acceptable (and some of the stuff is frankly blockable). I've deleted every remotely dubious link on the userpage, revision deleted everything, and warned the user. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the user in question not a sock of the currently indefinitely blocked User:Vwqvj qwhiu? Their user pages seem to be identical, and describes pages created by User:Vwqvj qwhiu as creater by User:Yfyyejgjwguj. 131.111.5.158 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User now appears to have been blocked by Jpgordon. Just wondering if there was a reason you ignored my query Black Kite? Was genuinely just trying to be helpful! 131.111.5.160 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

2014 Isla Vista Killings discussion
I have tried creating an WP:RfC and that was reverted. I also tried getting a WP:third opinion but that was also reverted. What can I do to change to update the article? A lot of the information is outdated and needs some major updating. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

request for double-check
I promise I'm not trying to rope you into a discussion I'm having, but I want to ask if you'd evaluate my own arguments and ensure I'm presenting myself accurately.

At this AN/I now-archive, I was taken to task by an IP editor for writing the article suicide of Louis Conradt (from scratch) and then redirecting Louis Conradt (what I characterized as a WP:BIO1E). You said that I'd done nothing wrong because  I recently wrote the article Press Your Luck scandal from scratch and redirected the article Michael Larson thereto. I'm receiving the very same pushback from another single editor, though not an IP and with much more experience on the project.

Would you mind looking at Michael Larson (the BIO1E, where my redirection was undone, but is otherwise unchanged), Press Your Luck scandal, and the discussion at Talk:Press Your Luck scandal? (a) Am I correct in making the same arguments there that you did back in Jan 2023, and (b) if so, am I articulating myself and those rationales properly? Again, I'm not asking you to 'slide up in there and put your thing down' (to quote fine art); I'm watching here if you wouldn't mind just auditing me and my actions/words. If you do mind, that's completely fair&mdash;it's a big ask, but I'll still watch here for you to say 'no', if you don't mind. Thanks for your time and gracious patience  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you
It had dragged out, and seemed to be some sort of dragged out nightmare, thanks for your action. JarrahTree 12:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ed Winters
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ed Winters. 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. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

G6 deletion of D4-D
Hi, while looking at Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions, I saw you deleted D4-D as G6 ("Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: already moved to draftspace, unsourced"). I am curious as to how this works with WP:DRAFTOBJECT, as I thought recreating a draft in mainspace was considered to be an objection and meant that the article should go through a full AfD? Sorry for the confusion! Chaotic Enby  (talk · contribs) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article had been moved to Draft as it was unsourced, where it had been declined by AfC reviewers (twice) for that reason; however it was then identically created in mainspace again by the same user. It was this one that I deleted, as the user (who has since been blocked for persistent sockpuppetry) was clearly just being disruptive.  It wasn't the only article that they did this with, all of which were completely unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, even if an article is unsourced, recreating it in mainspace still counts as WP:DRAFTOBJECT and it should've been sent to AfD, right? I don't really see where G6 fits into this. If the user was a sock of a previously banned sockpuppet, G5 could've worked, but otherwise (even if it wasn't a big loss) it seems like a case of WP:NOTG6 (which includes Articles that were moved to draft space and then cut-and-paste moved back to mainspace). Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 22:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know you can't see the history, but what I deleted was only a redirect to the Draft. The user had edit-warred with another admin to restore the article even after it had been draftified, and it was then restored by another new account (and reverted by that same admin).  Perhaps G6 was the wrong code, but we were merely tidying up after disruption and the article was never going back into mainspace in its current state. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My bad, I thought you deleted the whole article! Works fine then, no worries, although R2 is usually the way to go to delete redirects to drafts! (G6 is often misapplied so I was a bit weary but seems like the deletion was well-justified!) Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

regarding Canada–India diplomatic row
User:Mfarazbaig is removing the redirect from Canada–India diplomatic row which is whole copied from 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row despite rejected for split. 2402:A00:152:85D3:F40E:4A37:45B:2FD2 (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Karen Black and related
Hallo - they have returned again: 93.216.100.71 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Draftify SurrealDB
Hello @Black Kite I noticed you deleted the SurrealDB page after it was initially sent to draft space after a deletion discussion, but a user moved it back into mainspace.

Could you please recover the original page and contents, and place it back into draft space as I'd like to continue working on this article in the future, as I believe it will eventually gain more notability.

please feel free to leave a draft notice on the page so that a user does not move it back onto the mainspace Mr Vili   talk  18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Draft:SurrealDB. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite thank you. It appears the page had been significantly altered from what I last saw, is it possible to restore the edit history? Mr Vili   talk  00:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * * Try it again now. Black Kite (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

New message from Red-tailed hawk
— Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

AE
I posted about that to Red-tailed hawk earlier but I'm not sure when they will be back online. I don't think a TB will be sufficient, but maybe. Some sanction is needed. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Not an apology, but more like a "you were right, I was wrong"
Should have known better, I guess. On those rare occasions when I disagree with you, I think, well Black Kite can't be perfect all the time. That ... is apparently not what happened here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Haha, perhaps. But you were still right to try, because you never know with these... Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User
User could be user. See history page of 2025 FIFA Club World Cup. Island92 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Newv edit war occurred. Previously, user Fa30sp was prevented from editing this page for the same reason. Island92 (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Let’s talk
Let’s talk about why you took away my phrase that is accurate that says Uruguay won a hat-trick of world titles. What is the point of taking that away? It’s true. This is shown via a photo in the fifa museum in Zurich, Switzerland. That “twitter post” still exists on X but you saw the photo. You know the FIFA museum says this, and yet you still want to take away credit from Uruguay as winning a hat-trick of world titles. Why? Please re-instate it back on their page. You don’t even need a reference to put that true sentence.Truefacts24 (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)