User talk:Black Kite/Archive 19

Gavin Paul Carter

I have no idea how to communicate with Wikipedia, but as you are the person who deleted the entry for Gavin Paul Carter I thought it best to talk with you. Firstly the entry still comes up in searches and is misleading people. The Land of Grimney website is up and running and doing well. It would be helpful if you could either create an entry regarding the site, or remove the Wikibin information completely, as it is out of date. I have sent you a link to the site http://www.thelandofgrimney.co.uk/index.php Kind Regards Gavin Paul Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpin99 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, we don't have any control over content outside Wikipedia itself (such as Wikibin or Deletionpedia that keep copies of deleted articles). Your best bet would be to contact these sites directly. Black Kite 08:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Stingray Sam

Hello there. Given the recent deletion of the Stingray Sam article, I was wondering if I could have a copy of the original so that I could have something to work on once (or if) the movie garners appropriate notability to sustain a place on Wikipedia.--DrWho42 (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Penny_Parker_(MacGyver)

Hello! You redirected the article. Before then, I had added some sources to it. As you are okay with it being redirected, can you please undelete the edit history so that I can merge the sources to the redirect location and thereby improve the redirect location accordingly. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for opinion

I have shown World Stadiums, who claims its pictures are free to use, as a host of many copyright violations (such that any hosted image is of questionable status) at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 27. Images in question are: Image:Lokomotiva stadium.jpg, Image:Tehelne Pole.jpg.jpg, Image:Maksimirworldstadiums.jpg, and Image:MaksimirStadium.jpg. I am utterly convinced that they are untrustworthy as a source for "free" images. However, I would not know how to tag their images here for "speedy deletion" since:

• the site puts a false claim about the "free" status of their images,
• the speedy tags do not seem to cater for such a situation,
• the images are at PUI.

Could you give me some advice or take a look at the situation? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Portishead

Black Kite, I noticed you did a lot of work on this article, and it appears that an editor at amazon.com may be copyvio'ing our page there (see the Editorial Reviews section of this page). I'm hoping we didn't end up with a copyvio here. Hopefully you can help shed some light on which came first! Please reply on my talk. Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured as much. I've sent amazon.com a GFDL compliance letter. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent block

...of Html009 shouldn't have been done. The user did not vandalize after the final warning. The AIV report said that the user was on last warning at the time of the report. The administrator should check to see if there is vandalism from that user after the final warning. I just want to make sure that you know that user did not vandalize a page after the final warning was given. -- IRP ☎ 01:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Talk page stalker here. That part of AIV specifies IP editors. Registered accounts can be blocked without waiting for a "final warning", and it appears that BK just blocked this as a vandalism only account. Protonk (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yup. Wasn't a difficult decision given their final edit. Black Kite 09:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your critical comments requested

Hi Black Kite. I remember that at one stage you were acting as an advocate for users who felt they'd been unfairly blocked. I wonder whether you'd mind having a look here and letting me know what you think about it, and how the process might be improved. Tony (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content

I read that section and read the consensus debate over use of characters in list images off that talk page. The consensus is that if there is a group shot, then it should be preferred. There is no group shot of the Ugly Kids. Second, is the character a main character? In that one episode, they were. But to compromise with you, I have added only one of the four kids abck into the article, and the one that had the largest role in the episode.--2008Olympian^chitchat 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk on the NFC talk page about NFC on list articles that states that a character does not have to be notable enough to have its own article to get a picture in the list article. And there is no arbitrary limit of only one photo per article, as you would enforce by replacing the one that is there with Jamal. I am not, however, deaf to the policy about using too much non-free content. I had photos of all five Ugly Kids in the article and pared it to only one. I honestly do not think that a textual description of these characters adequately portrays well enough exactly how these characters look, so I provided just one example to let the reader see just how different the appearances of these characters are. These guys are uniquely in the entire series in how they are drawn, and with their physical characteristics being the entirety of their existence, a photo is necessary. It's like having an article about The Elephant Man that doesn't show what he looks like. For a reader who has never seen this episode, that reader will naturally wonder what these kids looked like and want to see a picture.--2008Olympian^chitchat 22:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hey Black Kite, I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm confused about something.

There's an article that was recently created called Elan morrison. This article is clearly misleading and disruptive - the individual is not a ghost writer. But I wonder, should it be tagged G3 (pure vandalism), A7 (non-notable individual), A1 (no content), or even be speedied in the first place? I'd tag it, but I'm not confident in what to tag it with. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see, thank you. :) I figured the individual wasn't notable, however notability seemed to be asserted (though it was obviously not true, plus it was likely a coi), so I was wary of tagging it for speedy deletion. But thank you for your assistance. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Received your message shortly after posting this, again thank you. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF AFD

It was a serious AFD you know, can you re-open it?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Townson

I found a bio of a music producer in an article on Robert Tounson (a bishop) and forked it off. Some one has deleted what I did out of hand and without warning. Is this not rather high-handed? I have no knowledge of the music producer or the merits of that article, but it did contain several wikilinks. It was accordingly not patent rubbish. Please explain, and tell me what I should do differnetly next time I find something like this? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

T.J. Johnson

I have reverted your edit removing T.J.'s image as the Blue Space Ranger from his article. Really, we should keep both images to illustrate T.J. both as the Red Turbo Ranger and the Blue Space Ranger. If we can't keep both images, I would suggest removing his image as the Red Turbo Ranger (morphed), as the image inside the infobox also shows him as the Red Turbo Ranger (although unmorphed). ANDROS¹³³⁷ 15:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Biggs

Hi - I see that you deleted the above back in June as a hoax. I cannot tell what was written but this M Biggs [1] is a well known radio personality in the UK and I'd like to create an article on him. I'm afraid I cannot as you have blocked the name, could you look to unblocking him please? Thanks. Paste ^Talk 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Paste ^Talk 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing blocked....

I got this message when I went to edit the Burgh Castle article. Any chance it could be unblocked (it's a public library computer)?

Editing from 194.72.9.25 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Black Kite for the following reason(s): —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsur (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Afraid not. For details on this, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action. Black Kite 12:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is totally ridiculous, what on earth are you doing, I just went tolog in and was told I was banned - You seem to have banned the entirety of London SW - do you have a reason for this? Giano (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have seem what it's all about, but why does it say your name has done the blocking? Giano (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

G1/A1 reviews

Hey Black Kite, I liked your comment on my essay about how I hate speedy deleters. I was wondering if you could take a look at the two surveys I did of G1 and A1 deletions. Tell me if you agree with my interpretation/conclusions. There are discussions on my talk page for both of them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Carl Lindgren

It was brought to my attention the possible deleting on my entry (Carl Lindgren). I did note that some of the links were incorrect and if it is to stay should be corrected.

My only notable aspect, if there be any, is that since the creation of Annam (Chinese province)and later the Annam (French protectorate) I am the first and last Occidental to ever be appointed and occupy the position of Chancellor by the Nguyễn Dynasty for the Order of the Dragon of Annam. Because of this, the son of the late Emperor Bao Dai, Crown Prince Bao Long gave me the title of Hau (European Marquis) and the Collar of the Order of the Dragon. Because of this position, I have received numerous other awards (knighthoods) listed in Wikipedia. Noted under Carl Edwin Lindgren.

I am also one of only a few specialists in Metagogiek. Thank you.

Royalhistorian (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

regarding the user named Middayexpress

Hi Administrator

This user seems to be in constant revert wars, in the Somali articles. Check the historyline from Somalia , Mogadishu , Somaliland , Hargeisa , Somali People and languages. He is very slick.... I dont like the way he is guarding his 'versions' If you dont believe test one article he is on top. But dont use your administrator account.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.241.205 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

just add something extra useful.. and you will see he reverts its back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.241.205 (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite. In case you were wondering, that's the incorrigible sockpuppeteer Xetra80 who I successfully reported some time back expressing his sour grapes. Sorry you had to be subjected to that nonsense. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I really dont like your offensive accusations , i dont know who xetri is or why you are being paranoid. Stop the name callings , behave and STOP the revert wars in Somali pages. Middayexpress you are guilty of several revert wars. What is sad that many people give up because of your extremism , last case you smoothtalked to admins and was offensive against kwami... what is ' correcting errors ' when you clearly are just reverting back articles to fit tour view. You dont own wikipedia and certainly have no right do guard your versions . I think your 500 reverts speaks for themselves.

128.39.241.205 (talk)

User:Vooom

Or whatever his name was. I wasn't second guessing you, I was just busy reviewing, deciding to block, and leaving a message at the same time you were leaving the warning; didn't see it until it was too late. Feel free to reduce/unblock. --barneca (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Slavic scripts 3RR

Hi Black Kite.

User:Xenovatis has violated 3RR on Glagolitic alphabet and Early Cyrillic alphabet‎. The issue is that he takes the common legendary view on the origin of these scripts, which is repeated in the EB and numerous lay publications that mention the subject tangentially, as fact, and the more nuanced scholarly view referenced in Daniels & Bright (The World's Writing Systems, Oxford, 1996) as "fringe". He demotes the latter to an afterthought in the section, after stating the legendary origins as fact, and when challenged he just produces more lay pubs that mention the legend in passing and reverts to his version, essentially arguing that quantity trumps quality.

Could you protect the page or block him or something?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, didn't see your 'busy' notice. I also asked Tony1.)

Thanks. kwami (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Chuvash language

I have usually gone to User:Kwamikagami with this, but since he has participated in the discussion in the past, I don't want to get him in any more hot water. There is an anonymous IP that continually strips this talk page. Kwami has given partial protection to the page on at least one previous occasion, but as soon as the partial protection expires, the anonymous IP is right at it again and I have to keep reverting his vandalism. Can anything be done more than a one-week block to anonymous IPs? (Taivo (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC))

I've gone ahead and pp'd for 6mo. kwami (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of people from Yorkshire

I have to disagree strongly, and I think you misunderstand my good intentions. You say these people are unquestionably from Yorkshire, then well, you're required to WP:PROVEIT, because I say they're from Lincolnshire and my friend says they're from Mars, and neither I or you or my friend are reliable sources, and adding things that you "know to be true" is not how WP works, of course. Indeed, how do I verify you are right? Where are you getting your material from? WP:V is quite clear and I'm only doing what is asked of me there, it's not like I'm breaching policy. As Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has put it:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

EVERYTHING on Wikipedia has to be attributed to a reliable source. You cannot decide what is and is not contentious, because it looks like you're plucking facts from thin air, does it not? Indeed, by your logic, why can't I start my own list based on no material? This is quite elementary editorial stuff.

I'm not insensitive to the fact that this list holds some affection, and I understand why you feel this is a useful page, but really I have to be bold and remove unsourced stuff now before it gets out of hand. Just look at something like List of people from Bolton - we have workable examples of good practice, whilst also, as stated, this list needs splitting into four per WP:PLACE. I believe we could achieve something quite good from this via a fresh start. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree entirely about the List of people from Manchester. I hadn't realised this is/was the case. As such I've removed the offending material in a simillar way. Somebody had to get the ball rolling with these terrible terrible sprawling and uncontrolled lists, and I'm just annoyed it was me (I knew this would be contenious). If we can produce lists at city and borough level for Yorkshire, we can create much more managable pages, with better ownership by editors, whilst at the same time, these will be much more helpful when adding to settlement-class articles (so we can say for Bradford "See also the List of people from Bradford" rather than a mega-Yorkshire one). I envisage us to use the system used by the List of people from London page. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem. However, WP:PLACE states that we use the modern county system, if the county at the time of an event was different then it is important to mention this, but as an afternote. Indeed, presently, somebody from post74 Saddleworth would be on the Yorkshire and Oldham list, which is surely bad practice. I've created List of people from South Yorkshire purely as a disamiguator and example of how we can take this. In that I mentioned the West Riding of Yorkshire. However, if we reduce these lists down to district level, we avoid the need to say which county it is or was. Does that make any sense at all? London is probably the most comparable to Yorkshire in that the list would be huge, whilst Middlesex is still used in the region. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

Thanks for making clear that anything that is not liked by established editors here is seen as vandalism. And sorry for not knowing about 3rr, or for whatever i was blocked. Vandalism I guess, but I wanted to improve the article not vandalize. But yeah, why did I dare to change anything in this article in the first place.91.0.111.35 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:RMHED/Sandbox2

You speedy deleted this page under U1. It is a portion of the user in question's talk page history. He is not leaving, and we don't delete talk page histories generally unless they are. RMHED has consented to restoration, which I will do presently; just leaving you a note. seresin ( ¡? )  20:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

SSP

I don't see why you wouldn't make a few slight edits to fix formatting instead of outright deleting a report. That is not productive. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:RFC on College Football logos

Already done so. Thanks for letting me know. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Because it is. A discussion is taking place about what the policy says and doesn't say. Is it not common practice that when a discussion is going on about what to do, to not do anything until it is resolved? Yet he has reverted and edit warred all over Wikicountry. Maybe I'm just missing what he's trying to say but as far as I've always known, you don't make changes to articles that already had things in place, until an outcome is made to warrant those changes. Just like th Mississippi issue. The content's been there over a year. Suddenly someone with obvious bias comes along to whitewash the article without any form of consensus, removing original content. Seraphim is doing the same thing.. going along removing images that have been, in some articles, there for years. Maybe I am wrong but I just don't see it, so I called it what it was. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I went to refactor that comment, after thinking about it more, and can't find it anywhere. I know you moved the RFC to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos but the rest of the conversation seems to have disappeared. ???? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 03:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Black Kite, Merry Christmas!

Black Kite,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Re:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV

Just replied on the NFC talk page. Looking into the issue now. J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my Oldsmobile image, but I'm unsure of what was wrong. I followed exactly the template when I uploaded the photo.--Criticalthinker (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tripshake deletion

Hello,

I am the author of the page Tripshake that you deleted. I am not sure why it was deleted, as a user of TripShake I think it could be of interest to many of the ones who subscribed. TripShake is a travel website, like TripAdvisor, Dopplr and others who have pages on Wikipedia.

Thank you!

Antonio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasson (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Thanks for the help at WP:SSP, much appreciated, but would you please follow up on your decision and exert some form of compliance with policy guidelines by the same user? The situation is out of control:

• he’s edited your archived debate. [2]
• restored AfD vote [3] by the account you blocked. [4]
• while continuously attacking every other editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (3rd nomination)

Thanks in advance, --Poeticbent talk 19:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Vandalism of User Sgeureka

Hi, Black Kite!
Why did you closed this discussion [5] and marked it as "Solved" ? The question is not about merging episodes to a List, it is about User's vandalism and misleading comments & tags.
And this question is not solved yet! Krasss (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for taking care of that ANI thread User:Roobit thread from WP:AIV, I didn't want to mark it as resolved myself as I had moved it from AIV in the first place. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Unblocked

How long is the ban? I think one editor voted for a month, but how long is it really? --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 16:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for letting me know. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 16:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And can I restore the previous content to my page please? --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 17:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! It's full-protected. If you'll unprotect it, I'll do the rest. :) --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 17:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Template Help

Hey, need an admin to rectify something. Noticed that Template:Notability, a heavily used and protected template links to the proposed policy of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) even though it clearly states on proposed policy pages that references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". The template is misleading. A short discussion at Template_talk:Notability#Proposed_Policy_should_not_be_linked_to_from_Template came up with a possible solution, just need an admin to do it. Hooper (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from a Sock puppet

Greetings from a Sock puppet

Too Funny.

• fyi: Triad (Battlestar Galactica) and Pyramid (sport)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nizevyn Block

Did you block Nizevyn because you thought he was the same person as Cambios? Please clarify who you think his sockpuppets are. --Theblog (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Theblog ANI

I have responded to your response, please present your evidence or stop making false accusations. Also, note that I have not edited the threshold page in a very long time, if you could clarify that where you said I did edit it, I would appreciate it. Thank you.--Theblog (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, I am honestly tired of your baseless accusations, if you check my history you will see that I have a long history at Wikipedia on many subjects, you will see that I edited the threshold page many years ago, it is a page that interests me, you will see that I still edit Wikipedia infrequently, the last time being ~9 months ago. I have explained this to you that I do still frequently use Wikipedia and if something interesting pops up on my watchlist I may get involved, this is what happened here. I did not come here because I was contacted, I actually started posting just before the threshold deletion, so your theory there is clearly false. Again, I ask you to assume good faith and not make up stuff about me. Thank you.--Theblog (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You accused me of taking people for fools, which I have not done, and is a complete fabrication on you part, please retract that statement and again read assume good faith. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not if you look at it in detail Nizevyn is clearly a new user who doesn't understand a lot of things about Wikipedia, he needs a mentor, not a banning. I am NOT making people out to be fools, please cease your personal attacks. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I know why you blocked him, I believe it was unfair and should be reconsidered, no warning was given at all and the outlined protocol wasn't followed. It has not been established with any clarity that he is a sock puppet, and the editing styles are clearly different as its obvious Nizevyn is a new user. Again, I ask you to reconsider, thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I also ask you to retract your personal attacks and stop making them per WP:PA. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

70.54.2.151 (talk · contribs)

With all the sockpuppet infestation should we check this IP against the known ones?--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

removal of comments from AfD.

Hi Black Kite, I'm not certain that striking and collapsing those comments were appropriate given the nature of the situation. Don't know policy on this, but they were fairly well thought out arguments (well mostly) and important to the discussion. Again, not sure what policy is here, I just felt it hurt the discussion. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation! Hobit (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorsed

Regarding CadenS, I've endorsed your proposal on ANI. — Realist² 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate and damaging

Could you please have a look at this for me as I feel these two posts were inappropriate, unnecessary, and damaging. Both comments made (by User:Cuddlyable3) are offensive and I am uncomfortable with those posts because this user has been bothering me on and off for one thing or another for the last six months. I'm not sure if any violations were breached on his part. I'm not familiar with all wiki policy but I would like it removed. I would also ask to be left alone and not be followed around by this user (if you check his history you will see what I mean). Furthermore, any feedback from you on my talk page is appreciated. Please understand that I am being civil and polite here. I'm not attacking him. I'm offended by his posts. Thanks. Caden S (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

‎

Merger centralization

Hi. This is in response to your comments at the TTN/AfD/E&C/etc. RFAR. Although other editors have mentioned some sort of merger centralization, you have written more on this topic. I am responding here to avoid cluttering up the case.

As far as I can tell, Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is analogous to Wikipedia:Requested moves. They are optional, are meant to request outside assistance or input, and have discussion occurring on Talk pages of the affected articles. PM has a substantial backlog and apparently poor subscription. I attempted to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but got zero feedback, including after copying it to Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Mergers for discussion. I'm open to starting a new discussion (advertised widely at VPP, VPPR, AN), but I would like to see interest from anyone first. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your input requested

Your input is requested. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cambios RFC

I have opened a request for conduct on Cambios here. As you were the blocking admin and have attempted to resolve the dispute a number of times I am sure you are interested.--Patton^t/c 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Eric Potts

I was able to find suitable coverage in reliable sources. I have thus expanded and sourced the article. It could benefit from expansion and further sourcing, but I feel it now meets your concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Zinta images

Hello dear Black Kite. I see you reverted the re-addition of Zinta's images. With all my respect to you as an admin and to your work, I find it very wrong. First, your oppose to it on the FAC did not withhold its promotion. Many discussions regarding the issue have taken place in different talk pages consequently and the result was quite clear. I can't see why these images do not pass WP:NFCC - IMO, they do fulfill the criteria, they do bring something significant to the understanding of the topic, and the rationale shows that directly. I would therefore ask you--before reverting again--to please first start a (new) discussion to reach consensus and to avoid any edit wars and misunderstandings, more so when many other FA BLPs on actors and filmmakers use such non-free images and nobody has a problem with that. My truly best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ARV

Hi, in case of Feroze Gandhi, the case is certainly not content dispute. The vandalistic edits made by the User:Truthseeker121 is exactly similar to an edit which might describe Barak Obama as a Muslim. Despite repeatedly being told not to reinstate the false propoganda to the article, the user has not stopped. I am curious as to how you decided that it was a case of content dispute? Your response in my talk page will be highly appreciated. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that introducing deliberate mis-information in a biographical article is vandalism. Furthermore, What is Not vandalism does not say that the above mentioned type of edits are not Vadalism. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a beer on me

This one's on me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hey, I was wondering if I could copy a mainspace article to my sandbox for some major expansion? Thanks. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 11:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [6]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation on Kaczynski

At least some of the material violates "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." - this is definitely true of controversial statements made by Kaczynski's political opponents like Walesa and Palikot. The portion which states: "In 2006 Polish newspaper Rzeczpolita released secret service files which allegedly document a discussion on the leader's sexuality. In the files, Colonel Jan Lesiak is reported to have said..." is a bit more legit but IF I thought it should be included I would cut it off at "leader's sexuality" and leave the SB speculation out (particularly since that kind of thing was/is a not uncommon form of provocation). Otherwise it's just spreading gossips (especially with that "is reported to have said"). Furthermore I don't really see the point of this section and it's not particularly notable and overall goes against the spirit of "respect the subject's privacy".radek (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good and I agree that there is SOME way to mention the controversy without being tabloidy about it.radek (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against Domer48

Please explain why you closed down my complaint on AN without investigating it. Mooretwin (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it had already been raised at WP:AE, which was the proper place for it. Black Kite 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How was it the proper place for it? And, in any case, it wasn't investigated there. Mooretwin (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because issued regarding Troubles-related articles are covered by ArbCom enforcement and thus belong on AE. As you can see, you originally raised the issue at AN, was told to move it to AE, no action was taken at the AE noticeboard, and so moving it back to AN is merely forum shopping. Black Kite 20:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I only moved it back to AN because it was ignored on AE with (I think) the suggestion that it should be seen at AN. Why was it ignored on AE and what can I do to have it investigated? Mooretwin (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you do me the courtesy of explaining why the complaint was not investigated? Mooretwin (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me why it wasn't investigated? Mooretwin (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) On an aside could you have a word with Mooretwin about his constant attacks on Domer this being the latest along with his forum shopping an admin has already given him a final warning here. This is IMO harassment of an editor and get ready for his cry of tag team which Fozz has also told him to stop. BigDunc^Talk 09:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, from my perspective it is Domer48 harassing me. He follows me around WP and opposes everything I attempt to do. (It also seems that you are following me around- how else did you end up here?) Mooretwin (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you never heard of a watchlist, Black Kite has helped me on my talk page and I have had dealings with them, no conspiracy. BigDunc^Talk 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh aye. ;-) Mooretwin (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a bit busy IRL at the moment, and I've only looked at this quickly, but I don't see that either side has provided a reliable source as to what the body was actually called. I'd suggest it'd be better to concentrate on that issue rather than entering into a circular talkpage argument. Black Kite 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaroslaw Kaczynski and user Radeksz in particular

Hi, I've seen you taking an interest in this page before so I hope you don't mind me contacting you here about it. I'm rather worried by the ongoing almlost edit-war, specifically attempts to hide all mention of the subject's sexuality. While usually WP doesn't gossip, as BLP guidelines say (and I spell them out quite clearly on the article's talk page) - if allegations are reliably sourced - then they should be included even if detrimental to the subject. As we know Walesa and Palikot have caused a lot of controversy regarding Kaczynski's alleged homosexuality - and because it has been such a big subject mentioned by many media sources it should be included. Yet Radeksz and others keep misapplying BLP to oppose it and even when I got them to agree to mentioning SB investigations into the subject, Radeksz insists on removing an appropriate quotation whose absence renders the discussion hopelessly vague. So, basically, do you think I've misunderstood the rules or do you feel that it is they who are misapplying them? Some intervention would be appreciated because we are now going round in circles. Thanks for your help:) Malick78 (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Argentine films

Hi fella. Whats going in with Argentine films? It seems you;ve dleeted Sabrina Love and removed a public domain image of File:Argentinohastalamuerte.jpg?

I see that you;ve moved several hundred titles from english back into Spanish in answer to the ANI complaint. Are you aware though that there was a consensus at WP:Films that if a film has been released internationally then the title should be in English not Spanish. I personally don't mind, and for a long time think of it as an original Spanish film so should be in the native language. But if you look too much into it problems start occuring, FOr sinance The Good the Bad and the Ugly is an Italian film but is not under its Italian title. I think more discussion is need at WP:Films as as far as I'm aware the lead coordinator of the project Giro Savaronola has long supported the titles being in English. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey amigo how are you!! Yes I can see you were doing in good faith so thanks for your efforts. Finding the wrong ones is difficult but I believe the criteria is that the film must have had an international release in an english title to be in english. At present the two I've found are El crimen del padre Amaro (had a strong release in the states and UK as "The Crime of Father Amaro", and La niña de tus ojos starring Penelope Cruz. Can you move them back? Cheers. Oh I'm back on working on Africa again at present so I will be filling out the templates on the national parks and getting them up and running. If there are any which you want me to work on let me know! Best regards Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Great looking page by the way. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Book

This edit messed up the formatting of the infobox. Could you please revert it? The version I suggested on the talk page is just fine. ~ Paul^T+/_C 03:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against 87.198.192.181

Hi Black Kite,

Given the short amount of time between my request and your refusal to block, I imagine that you didn't have the time to look at the content of those "edits". If you had, I think you'd agree that it is in fact vandalism, a type referred to on the Wiki page as "Sneaky Vandalism". The user has repeatedly added plausible misinformation to articles, and attempted to hide his vandalism by making two bad edits. He/She has been warned repeatedly. I understand that you are busy, but request that you reconsider the block request on these grounds. Thanks Farkeld (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Stirring the Pot - MFD

Hi Black Kite, I understand your point. I am heterosexual, but I support same-sex marriage (Its not my thing, but if it makes them happy, who am I to stand in their way.) But I'm afraid you are allowing yourself to be led on a slippery slope. "one man and one woman" is certaintly not the nicest way to put it, but would you as vehemently delete "between one man and a woman or two men or two women"? I'd also like to point out that "straight not narrow", as good as it sounds to supporters of same sex marriage, it must be not the nicest thing to say in the view of opponents of same sex marriage (calling them "narrow"). CharonX/talk 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I support same-sex marriage. But at the same time I must respect the opinion of those that oppose it (misguided as they may be). There is an excellent quote, sadly I forgot from whom "I may not agree with your opinion But I will fight to the death your right to speak it.". Because, if we truly are impartial and judge the "one man and one woman" to be deletion-worthy, we might have to prune a significant number of equally almost-neutral userboxes that support same-sex marriage to. And I'd rather allow people to state "straight but not narrow". CharonX/talk 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I'd be unhappy if those userboxes supporting same-sex marriage were gone, but if we chose "one man and one woman" as the standard for what is unacceptable - text wise - "straight not narrow" would have to be equally unacceptable, to name an example. I just don't like double-standards. Even though the side at disadvantage is the side I disagree with. And this is why this issue is such a can of worms - I'd really appreciate if we could keep the lid on it. CharonX/talk 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, let's continue this this discussion here. "Criminals should not be allowed to vote" "Poor people should not be allowed to vote" "Mental patients should not be allowed to vote" "Overweight white males in Germany should not be allowed to vote" - to take your example from the MfD discussion. The statements are (most likely) met with a combination of feelings, ranging from agreement to opposition to confusion. My point is the following: There are lots of opinions about lots of things. We tend to give the views we support a wider latitude that the views we oppose - which is ok, as long as we remember that we do it. If we need to be impartial about something (like in this MfD), it is necessary to remember that there are people who support that which we oppose or vice versa, and that - in some other issue - they may have the majority opinion on their side. And we would not appreciate to be gagged in those topics. This is the reason why I "fight" for this userbox, even though I don't agree with it. Once we start to limit "free speech" to those part the majority supports, there is no more free speech. I am not good with words, but I hope you understand what I am trying to say. CharonX/talk 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: CadenS topic ban reset

I have reset CadenS's three month topic ban. I think this is a fairly trivial application of policy but thought I'd inform you anyway. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Danger, Will Robinson

In this edit you remove not a userbox transclusion, but rather the a substituted version of text itself, from another user's userpage. I think that I do not have to remind you that this kind of thing is considered quite rude, and does certainly not match the demeanor an administrator should show. As you are not uninvolved in those matters (which I cannot blame you for) I believe it is not the best decision to do such things yourself - even if you maintain neutrality, others might second-guess your actions if you are involved in an issue. I urge you to remember you role both as an respected editor and as an administrator and reconsider your actions. Editing other people's userpages often ends up in drama, and if one of them an administrator, WP:ANI. Best wishes CharonX/talk 17:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The userbox was deleted at MfD so the user recreated it on his own page. Removing such material is uncontroversial, regardless of "involvement" in the MfD. Recreating it on his userpage is clearly a WP:POINT violation. Sorry, I don't see a problem here. If you do, WP:AN is the place to raise it. Black Kite 18:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I have little desire to take this on WP:ANI or WP:AN. It is User:Btphelps call whether he wishes to contest your edit or not. I only wanted to make you aware that others may view your actions differently than you do, and that those actions are likely to cause drama, which is what I'd rather avoid. CharonX/talk 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I misunderstood your message. Clearly User:Btphelps is free to view it however he wants, however he needs to be clear that such a userbox won't be allowed on his userpage until such time that the MfD is overturned or the community decides that it is allowable. Black Kite 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. But I feel compelled to ask you a somewhat tricky question - Is User:Btphelps permitted to have the text at question at his userpage, i.e. may he write - in textual form - what he believes marriage is to be? (Teacher Voice) Explain your answer (Sorry, couldn't resist - I've seen that question format too often during my time as student, and felt instantly reminded of it, after I read what I wrote ;) CharonX/talk 19:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I would have to take that one to AN for advice..! Black Kite 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A good answer I feel - not "yes" or "no", but it shows that you gave the question some deeper thought, and opted for seeking some external input (which is always a good thing - Earlier today at work I presented my latest, most excellent design to a co-worker. After some some intense discussion, I scapped about 1/3 of the design, keeping the good/acceptable parts, and redoing the bad/awful ones...). But you might have already guessed from where my question is stemming - should text on a userpage be treated differently if it were written plaintext, or placed in a table etc. - the lines just blur there. But I think you now understand where my concern came from. I'm hopeful that issue this will solve itself amicably without any additional unnecessary drama, one way or another. And I'm off to bed! PS: If you don't mind I'd like to merge our discussion on one of our talkpages, it becomes kinda hard to read if we have to jump between them. What talkpage would you prefer (if any)? Best wishesCharonX/talk 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind; either is OK! Black Kite 00:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Btphelps does wish to contest your editing[7] of my userpage. While you may feel differently about marriage, user pages are expressly personal pages where one is allowed to state their POV—in this case, that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. The userbox in question was speedily deleted[8] without gaining even nominal consensus, and this unfortunately speedy deletion is undergoing review.[9] Wikipedia guidelines say that "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor."[10] The userbox in question does not fall in that category, any more than other statements of belief, like Template:User Same Sex Married.

"Editors with Conflicts of Interests are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty."[11]. I strive nonetheless to keep my editing NPOV, and I trust others to help me in this process. If I don't feel I can maintain a NPOV, then I steer away from those articles. For example, I made a minor edits to the Proposition 8 lead shortly after the election—had it really passed or not?— which were reverted several times over several days by a single user. Rather than get in a dispute over minor edits, I let others sort it out, which they eventually did. While specifically polemical points of view are not allowed on user pages, my take on marriage is not "written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach." It is my opinion. I am not trying to inflict my views on anyone, I am passing no judgment, I am not accusing others of any kind of infirmity or anything of the kind, merely openly stating my bias. I was under the impression that WP was not censored, and nor should its users. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) @btphelps - This is not 'censorship'. This is avoiding being divisive - anything that is a userbox or is blatantly intended to emulate or imitate the look, feel, and usage of a userbox in a way such as you have is bound by policy. — neuro^(talk) 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, I am a talk page stalker. :) — neuro^(talk) 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)