User talk:Black Kite/Archive 23

Some NFCC galleries on stations stats

I've been working through this list of stations and have completed a review of 17% of the list. Of those, about 14% of them had logos in gallery form. The average number of logos per gallery is 3.5.

I've also found 15 articles where more than one logo is used in the infobox (example). I've also found some other fair use problems. For example, screenshots being used for identification purposes of on air personalities (example).

I've also found logos used in tables for identification purposes (only one so far).

I'm keeping track of all this at User:Hammersoft/list.

--Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Seamus Coleman

Hi, I have had a look at this article, it appears that it was originally deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman, but the article was then recreated (ignoring that afd result). The article was again nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Séamus Coleman, after discussion which you decided to keep. I don't really have a problem with keeping the article as he is barely notable, but is this procedurally correct? Thanks. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be sneaky vandalism!

Oh! I see. Normally, I am opposed to removing others' comments (about Niger and Togo losing all internet service and opening their article to vandalism when the people who watch those articles become offline) but I see your point. Now that would be sneaky vandalism! User F203 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

S'all right; I'm not bothered about it.

Essentially, as soon as he posts, he commits suicide. HalfShadow 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Griffinofwales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion about the refactoring at Jimbo's page Griffinofwales (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Database reports

Not sure if you saw this. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I just reverted an anon IP that appears to have personally attacked you in a closed AfD. I have posted the warning welcome template on its talk page accordingly, but you might want to be aware should the IP persist and ignore my warning. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Dweller apologises for being a right 'nana --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been merged --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I only closed the AfD 10 hours ago! My usual take on merge results at AfD is that if nothing has been done in a couple of weeks or so, then no-one really cares, so just redirect it. Black Kite 09:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But that's preposterous! If the material is notable, it should be retained and if not it should be deleted. Editor consensus was for merge, so it should be merged, not back door deleted.

I don't know what the usual methodology closing admins do at AfD, but I would expect those closing "merge"s to either merge the material or leave it where it is and slap a merge template on it. Your way seems the most harmful to the Project. How many times have you done it this way? --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As I suspected, your methodology is against policy. See Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_deletion_page point 7. Have you closed many like this? --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• What on earth are you on about? That page says - "If the decision is to merge, use {{Afd-mergeto}} and {{Afd-mergefrom}} to mark the AfD'd page and merge target talk page (respectively):. Which is exactly what I did - it's got a merge tag on it ([1]).

• This is standard. Some merges are very simple, but some aren't. If admins were expected to perform the merges themselves, no-one would want to go anywhere near very technical issues. It is better for the editors who created or are interested in the material to do the merge. As I said, if nothing has happened in a few weeks, I'll either do the merge myself if it's easy, or just redirect. If the material is so important that it needs to be in the target article, then it's still there in the edit history. I'd note that many admins don't even check back on these, which means they sit there with the merge tag on for a long time ... Black Kite 10:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, my sincerest apologies.

I don't know why, but I thought you'd simply blanked the page to a redirect. Ignore every bit of nonsense I wrote above and please accept these flowers with my regret for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm really embarrassed. --Dweller (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it :) Black Kite 10:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

When you tell me you've deleted 'many more' (presumably this means redirects to cast/character lists for Japanese actors, which Ryulong brought up), or assorted "unhelpful/non-notable/unlikely search terms" this does not help me improve as an editor at all. It's vague and I don't know which ones you're referring to. If you would tell me the name of the things you're nominating for deletion I could at least read the deletion review (and participate if it is still underway) to get an understanding of what the problem is with it. I can't exactly cease creating things when I don't fully understand the problem people have, because surely it's not a problem with everything. Akasaka Mamoru is another example: you're deleting the names of actual characters! These are redirects to sections on fictional character lists about these characters! I ask that you please stop and revert all these actions against my edits, it is clearly being done without adequately investigating it. This clearly needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. Tyciol (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response Black Kite. The concept of 'need' is relative though, at what point does one begin or cease to need direction to information about a name or a term? For some characters, sections in articles come and go. A character who has a section one day may not the next, or vice versa. Especially in lists with large amounts of people, even characters notable for the series are condensed into a section decribing a group, or even just describing a family. I'm not sure about the 'minor plot point' (please elaborate) but fictional organizations do seem notable to me, I don't understand why no information about something there is information for is a good idea.
• It's been argued constantly that this is confusing, yet nobody's really come forward expressing this issue. This is simply presumed about editors. Furthermore: I have established how helping people find a snippet of information about what someone has done is a start to building an article, not an impediment. Someone may create an article about an actor, but perhaps they do not know one of the movies they were in (perhaps the one redirected to) in which case, the sum of their knowledge to the redirect is greater than if they created it from scratch.
• Again, 'need' is relative. I saw what I thought was a need. There is rarely 0 need or 100% need, but rather, needs are relative to an intent. In some cases people are referred to by their first and middle names (this is common in some documents) and in some cases people do list their middle name, or if a name is written on paper and part gets cut off, a middle name may be all someone has to go by. I attempt to predict all these circumstances of confusion, they are realistic impediments for many competant people to be affected by, I think we need to account for more mistakes or lacks of information besides a misplaced keystroke.
• Referring to people by their surnames is common. It's pretty much just a given. For names that seem unusual like 'Bavin' I redirect under the assumption they are unique names (as many fictional and real famous people do create, their own names). If other people share the name, this does not eliminate the usefulness of a redirect. Rather: it means a disambiguation page would be more useful, so the solution would be to change it to a disambiguation page. I am glad you decided to recreate it as a disambiguation page: but then what was the point of deleting it in the first place? Now since I'm not a mod, I lack the ability to even discuss the contribution in question because I can't consult it. If you are able to retrieve that then I could potentially explain the relevance I saw at the time. You can realize how I'm unable to do that without knowing where I had it pointed (one can't be expected to memorize every edit one makes when doing large volumes of work in good faith that others will acknowledge it's use or ask for it).
• I do not think BLP is applicable: I did not add any biographical information about the person in question, rather, someone else did, to another article. I simply directed to it. If a person doesn't want their information on Wikipedia they should have it removed from the article I directed to. When it is no longer there, in that case I would agree it makes sense to remove the redirect. As it is: people may have BLP concerns they are ignorant of because people list information about them in random articles. I think people need to know when Wikipedia talks about them: redirects help them find out where it does.
• I read the section, however creating a redirect is not creating a self-redirect. A self-redirect is actually not created by a single person usually, but rather by multiple editors. I believe redirecting to the page is more valuable, and I despise red links (WP:RED), as it says, but only when used irresponsibly. I believe people who create links to potentially non-notable people they don't intend to make articles about are using them irresponsibly. That should be corrected by directing the name to the page as a placeholder for information location, and deleting the link until it leads to an article and isn't going to remain red for potentially years on end. "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable." The movie actors are verifiable from the cast lists, but are they notable? I saw nothing establishing that. If they are notable, then upgrading the redirect to an article makes sense. Clearly the person questioning them is not confused and has all the means to make this change, and doesn't take the step of doing so. If one wants to make articles, seeding red links throughout articles as reminders in hopes you'll chance upon them and get the urge is not the way to go about it: that's why we keep reminders. Basically, I understand the potential use of red links, but in the cases in question I saw no indication they were GOOD red links. Where's the indication that the people who made the links intended to create them within a reasonable timeframe? Tyciol (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the Elton Hercules issue, I really do not consider that a disruptive edit. I am well aware of how western names and honorifics are used, please do not imply ignorance based on something so little as a disagreement on what redirects are valuable. People are sometimes referred to by their first and middle names, such as on forms. For example, sometimes the last name is listed first. So you might see "John, Elton Hercules". Furthermore, segments of names make perfect sense. It also simply helps in the long run (Wikipedia not having a dead line) for disambiguation. If there were ever some other 'Elton John' considered notable and the performer's article were moved to Elton Hercules John, then Elton Hercules would be a fast way of accessing it.

You say I'm creating work for others: I disagree. They are creating work for themselves by unnecessarily deleting valuable redirects. Now: am I creating a need for work? That still has not been resolved. Many admins have agreed with many of my redirects, they've removed the tags placed on them. Others have been deleted because the mod who got to it first didn't like it. There's no consensus at all that 'Elton Hercules' would disrupt Wikipedia, so to just outright label it 'work' (why would I waste my time with something I did not think was valuable or helpful?). While some have expressed 'similar opinions' in the discussion, others have defended it, so I am not going to curb my protest simply because some do not like the policy.

For now I am going to avoid EH until I am able to convince you, because I don't want to be blocked. I think 'disruption' is a bit strong though, I'm going to need to read up on WP:DE but could you explain which this does? Does this disrupt progress towards building an article? There's no Elton Hercules in progress, so probably not. So I presume it's the other, that it contrary to building an encyclopedia? But I don't understand: how does EH interfere with Wikipedia's functioning or growth? It's a simple ignorable redirect. If anything, the fuss people are making about tagging and trying to remove them seems to be interfering with time we could put to better use. I think you'll agree: EH is not spam or an attack or anything else that other nominations for quick deletion usually are, right? Can't you see the intent here? If EHJ is redirected, then why not EH? Like to give an example, people watch WWE and hear someone called 'Hunter Hearst' but then the sound cuts out and they don't hear 'Helmsley'. Sure, they could look through the long list of disambiguation for 'Hunter' (or 'Hearst') but if they had simply entered 'Hunter Hearst' in the URL they would be where they wanted to go instantly... unless you had your way and Hunter Hearst was deleted, in which case they would then need to click 'search'. Now yeah, Triple H will be the first article that comes up, but it still might confuse them because it's not the title of the article since he goes by the abbreviation now, and it's only apparent in his list of stage names. Anyway, for further discussion, your pick of Elton Hercules is an excellent example so I will call it the EH issue. Tyciol (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

dodgy google search

I'm reading the ANI thread about weird re-directs when I see you post a GSearch "Elton Hercules" -John. That's sub-optimal, because people may call him elton hercules, but they're almost certainly going to include john on the same page. A search for "Elton Hercules" -"elton hercules John" is better, no? Doing that we find DeBretts - probably a reliable source. So, I dunno. Good faith and good redirects? Good faith and terrible redirects? (probably more of the second in my opinion.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You want to find people that call him "elton hercules", and not "elton hercules john". So, you use +"elton hercules" -"elton hercules john" which returns all hits for just elton hercules and does not return hits for elton hercules john.

Doing what you did blocks any pages with john anywhere in the page. "Elton hercules, also known as elton john," would have been blocked by your search. ("would have been blocked, if any existed, which they don't") NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody else chimed in about this issue. Since I created Elton Hercules. I did not have the knowledge of Google parameters to understand that I was being horn-swoggled! I am strongly tempted to create this again BK! Also, please go inform Chinese about the blockable offense he has committed by disruptively redirecting Barack Hussein to Barack Obama while you're at it (prove to me that he has been referred to as Barack Hussein without also calling him Obama at the same time!). Another thing: this is about 'same page' references. So even with NAIP's script, couldn't someone refer to him as "Elton Hercules" but then if he is later referred to in full, block that page from being a result? For example, if a web page said "His Last Name is John. His first and middle names are Elton Hercules. So in full, his name is Elton Hercules John". What script would not prevent something like that from showing up? Tyciol (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Altered Esthetics

I merged and redirected instead of an outright deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

oh, pity you're away

Hi Black Kite. I was going to ask you to take a quick look at the number and usage of NFC sound files in Big_Star_(band). When there are as many as four, I start to be a little concerned. But the nomination at FAC may have been resolved by 19 August. If that's the case, I'd report your feedback retrospectively at WT:FAC. Tony (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jonto

Just a heads up as the blocking admin here that this editor has stated that they will wait for 24 hours and again revert so as to circumvent 1RR on Troubles articles here best, BigDunc 16:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

deletion of article

hi, with reference to the deletion of the "tea towel explanation of cricket" article june 2008, I am not sure there can possibly be a copyright infringement here. As a cricket fan , I have heard this comic explanation of the rules often, over the years it has cropped up in various places. Whilst I agree that it became known as the tea towel explanation after it was printed on a tea towel the wording for this had been in place long beforehand therefore I doubt copyright can be claimed. It would be akin to a clothes manufacturer claiming copyright infringement on a newspaper for printing an old, common joke just because it was once featured on one of their t-shirts. Please reinstate this page.86.138.87.95 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Referencing Materials and Processes Simulations "MAPS" deletion

Hi Black kite, Thousands of researchers in industry, governmental and academic organizations around the world use modeling and simulation software as a productivity tool. So there is definitely a reason for covering these tools on Wikipedia. It does not make sense, however, to keep descriptions of some simulation environments on Wikipedia while some are disallowed. There are independent reviews and comments as cited. Certainly these people mentioned were not paid to give their comments, just the opposite they are customers from big companies, hence their opinion should have some weight. Please can you relist the page or as or tell me what I should do to have the article relisted?. Thank you --RosaWeber (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pics

Please STOP and let me look up the conversation before you remove more pics. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for the ORIGINAL debate on this subject. I just found the last time I had the same debate with someone over it here User_talk:Mathewignash/Archive_2#image_deletions_for_Transformers_articles. Thanks. I'll keep looking for the original debate. Mathewignash (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me directy to the policy you are using to limited the number of non-free images on a page? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you tagging articles as having excessive non-free images instead of just deleting the images like you did before. That gives us a better chance to review the articles and make decisions. I removed most of the pictures myself that you tagged. Thanks for the suggestions. Some of the articles were excessive. Mathewignash (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Barbie doll modern.jpg

I have removed the tagging from this image, because the image description clearly states that the it is used for critical commentary and identification. The image is used in the infobox. While copyright is important, it is also important not to waste time with picky queries about image tags. There is nothing wrong here as far as I can see.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:Oreo Fun Barbie.jpg

I don't think I created this file w/a fair use tag, and I'm trying to get out of town and don't have the time or the patience to check. I recall I got this photo off eBay. I contacted the seller and received permission to use the photo. He relinquished all rights to it and agreed to have it used on Wikipedia. Affix whatever tag you feel is appropriate. deeceevoice (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Recuse yourself in the future

Please recuse yourself from cases involving me in the future. Your block of me lacked fairness and balance, particularly in light of the arbitrary decision not to block the outright 3RR violater. A block of 48 hours for a first offense supports the impression of personal dislike. You previously mis-characterized 3 of my edits as "mass removals." When I pointed out that one of your examples was two sentences, and a second was three sentences, you made no effort to explain. [2] Furthermore, you inserted your comment into an AN/I of WebHamster's incivility, where it didn't belong. (There's a vague meat-puppet smell here, as you and WebHamster seem to be from the same place.) I have no idea where you're coming from (since you refuse comment), but it's hard to maintain an assumption of good faith in dealing with you. Noloop (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bring drama to you ...

Could you have a look at recent events at Jesse Dirkhising in contrast to User:CadenS/topicban? They may be doing good work elsewhere however the level of "heat to light" is discouraging and mimics the worst of my experiences with them. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Benji, Caden is no longer under that topicban, it expired months ago. → ROUX ₪ 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It was originally a 3-month topic ban that was to be re-examined to see if it could be rescinded. It was reset three times and the last comment was if you are involved in any problems like the ones that caused the topic ban to begin with, it will be re-instated. The problems we are having now, after months of these behaviours are identical to the issues that made me give up on that article the last time. Same battleground, accusations and claiming victimhood from all those LGBT editors. I'm not looking for a topic ban as much as keeping them off the article if they simply can't edit constructively there. They made similar edits on at least one other article but I ignored that. -- Banjeboi 22:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Report about Case Srebrenica

This article and its talk page are being repeatedly vandalised by IPs (the same person each time), with the talk page being used on a daily basis to make personal attacks against me. Could you please semi-protect both for a few weeks to discourage the vandal? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-free files reports

In case you miss it on your watchlist, Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files and Wikipedia:Database reports/Overused non-free files. Apologies for the delay. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Are they based on Betacommand's lists here? They auto-update, and also have useful hashes with tagging features, allowing us to note when high usage appears legitimate. Perhaps it would be best to work off Beta's lists? J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I say, Beta's lists autoupdate and have a feature so that we don't tread on each others' toes- even after updates. I really should sink some more hours into clearing that list... J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah NFCC3 like whoa. Protonk (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm not sure how we treat currency articles, I've only had passing experience of them in relation to non-free images (and that was only because an editor was using a non-free coin image to illustrate a living person who was depicted on the coin). Black Kite 23:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Trouble is I can see having a large number in currency articles. Hard to imagine anything north of 100, even for the biggest articles. that still leaves us with 200 images to pare down in that article (and I don't have a real good sense for which are most important). Protonk (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That article is effectively a sub-article of Indonesian rupiah (in fact, it's the only article that links to it). My inclination would be to have an example image from each set of banknotes - that'd cut down the images by 90% at least. I notice that it isn't the only problematic currency article, though. Black Kite 00:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict I just noticed in a tab) I think Beta's queries may be missing some results. I haven't done thorough testing, though. Some sort of exclusion mechanism is probably possible with the database reports, though that's a separate feature request and would need some more thought and consideration. I also added Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates containing non-free files. All three database reports update weekly. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

8-Bit Theater

I think you need a referesher yourself. There are no policies that prohibit the number of non-free images allowed per article. The images in that article satisfy all of the requirements for non-free content. There are currently no alternatives to using those images: prose drescriptions would be inadequete, there are no free alternatives, and there are no available "group" images or cast montages to reduce the number used (indeed, we've already done that where possible). If you believe there is a specific issue, please bring it up on the talk page for the article, and we will resolve it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 09:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please continue this conversation at Talk:Characters of 8-Bit Theater#Non free image use. bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: 75.172.195.7

I'm not commenting further on ANI, for privacy reasons, but the IP came  Confirmed to be an other -involved- editor. Considering how innocuous the edit was, I'm pretty sure that this was made by mistake. -- Luk ^talk 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your recent support (and defense) here. I really do appreciate it.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   09:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The sockfarm at Ahmed Deedat

Thanks for your actions at the Ahmed Deedat-article this week. Unfortunately, a new sockpuppet has ppped up, under the name of User:Hydrakol. He has reverted back the edits to his own version. Can you do something against it?Jeff5102 (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user involved in arbitration case

Hi there. A user you have blocked (and who was blocked again recently) is involved in an arbitration case. Would you be able to comment here as to whether you think Noloop should be unblocked to participate in the case? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Lasne and Ludovic Sane

Did you research to actually determine whether they have played in a fully professional league? Probably not. Just because the article says they did doesn't mean they did. Maybe they put the false information up just to have the page created fooling poeple like yourself. As I have told the other guy, the LFP, who are officially responsible for compiling statistics for Ligue 1 players shows that neither have yet to make a first team appearance. Playing for Bordeaux's second team in the amateur division does not mean an appearance for the first team. RCO Agde and Lormont FC are amateur clubs playing in amateur leagues and WP:ATHLETE clearly states you have to appear in a professional league.

Here's their LFP pages:

Paul Lasne Ludovic SaneJoao10Siamun (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• No reason to change them because I was deleted the articles. They were simply incorrect.Joao10Siamun (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, but I assumed that the person or people that removed the PROD would have actually conducted their own research and found what I found. Why would I put the article up for deletion for no reason? I guess that was bad on my part. Anyway, seems like they will be properly deleted. Joao10Siamun (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For your intervention in the Bottracker (talk · contribs) issue. I don't really enjoy getting involved in copyvio stuff and this episode had me wondering if I should avoid it completely in the future. Dougweller (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Family Feud (video game) covers

Why did you remove the covers? MrKIA11 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So every game series article can only have 1 cover? There are many violators of that. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

I hadn't seen the report filed by another editor and was still debating whether to "officially" report it myself when I saw this action from you. In the long run I have to agree with your action, your reasoning, and your misgivings about his conduct so soon after the previous conflict. It's disappointing that he hasn't chosen to remove the topics from his watchlist and move on. Just one editor's opinion anyway. Doc Tropics 19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Zombie College

Hello Black Kite, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Zombie College has been removed. It was removed by 99.153.78.233 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 99.153.78.233 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

metroPCS

I added a section to metroPCS on customer service. It was summarily deleted. After repeated deletes, I submitted this issue for resolution, and notified Christopher Kraus on his talk page of the pending request for resolution by an administrator. Now I see my addition again removed summarily by you. Please help have this addition reviewed and resolved without any comment-less reverts. I also see that the metroPCS article have for a long time been cleaned of any negative entries to the point where it is simply marketing for metroPCSErikev (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there is no prorated refund is right on metroPCS's own web page. The fact that there is no email to contact them is also right on their own "contact page". Is it really necessary to have a reference to the source when the facts are obvious? Maybe you should take away the statements that you think is not documented. Not kill the whole paragraph.Erikev (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychosurgeons

Hi! I was thinking of getting this userfied as well, as I found some good sources for it today - but only after the AfD had been closed early. Do you have any hassles if I add a couple? - Bilby (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they seem better known as the Lipstick Killers, and then evolved into Doctor Stone. I've got a lead on a promising source that I can probably access in the next couple of days. I gather it has quite a bit on them. You might also be interested in [3], although it is difficult to know if it will count as an RS. - Bilby (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

An independent effort on Tyciol's redirects

See also User talk:Ryulong#Editing Your list of_Tyciol.27s redirects. I've started deleting these directly per WP:CSD#R3 (unless they have useful history) since others appear to be doing that also. My list is alpha sorted, which does bring some related items together. Use my list if you want. This is the first 1000 items. I have four additional lists already prepared offline for the rest of the alphabet. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. In the first thirty redirects from my own list I only see one item with a clearly-justified keep (Abraham Thornton). Other than that, there are a few marginal ones that can be tolerated. This is suggesting to me that mass deletion of these redirects could be a justifiable plan. Only redirects with no history created by Tyciol would be deleted. The semi-automated deletion process could be accompanied by a log file that would remain readable, and would include the text of the redirect, so that any editor who thinks a particular redirect has value could recreate it, subject only to editorial consensus. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, whoops, I should have checked you and Ryu's talkpages. Anyway, I went and checked about 150 redirects on the old, non-alphabetized list. I hope something useful can come from that instead of just having to check the same ones again on the new list. link is here. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted about a dozen of those that Soap marked as needing R3 in the original Ryulong list. This is not going to be a very quick process. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. And I'm not going to be very active this week after today, either. Having said that - there's no rush. Black Kite 22:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, because I'm going to be pretty busy for a while myself. I left suddenly earlier this morning because something bad happened at work, and it's going to keep me tied up for the next few days. I'm glad to see that I was helpful in what I got done though. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Erikev on MetroPCS

Thank you for explaining citations to this user.

I received this on my talk page.

I have reported the reverting of metroPCS for resolution by administrator.Erikev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

--Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I believe the Admin noticeboard issue has been closed, But I am in no way related to MetroPCS. I just take interest in the cell phone industry.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Only 12 FU sound files used on Eric Clapton

Hi Black Kite

I wonder whether you're able to contribute to the discussion on the talk page, where I've raised NFCC issues as well as I can. Experts needed, please, in what might be a test case, or a useful reminder, of the limits. Thank you in advance. Tony (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not censor things

Please do not close up discusssions just to stop discussions. Otherwise, we could close up ANI saying that discussion is up. Gaydenver (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not censorship, and I have re-archived. The very source you quote to support your position says the opposite of your position. → ROUX ₪ 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the source confirms he was "part time". However, they embellished. The other source confirms the term "faculty member" Gaydenver (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting any further into this argument. Stop edit-warring. → ROUX ₪ 19:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your UAA report

I'm not sure if the Warwick, RI (left the exact name out of the section header to minimize attention to a real address) name is immediately blockable. A discussion at WP:RFC/NAME might be more appropriate. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Aye, agreed - moved it there. Black Kite 20:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sally Boazman

That was quick. I was just about to comment on that. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's basically what I was going to suggest so thanks. People are going to come here to search for her so we might as well direct them somewhere useful. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Many thanks. Justin talk 20:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

National Democratic Party of Germany

hello, i repeat what i wrote at the admin's noticeboard as a reply to User:Gaius Octavius Princeps request for blocking the above mentioned article. If my additions to the admin's noticeboard are a mistake by my side, i apologize for this.

I don't have the impression that princeps ever tried to discuss my edits. After he reverted my edits two times without a reason in the 'edit reason', he called my edits a "unreliable source smear". the sources i gave are from a reputable newspaper 'süddeutsche zeitung', a gouvernment run institution and the 'Verfassungsschutz', a source which was already used in the article multiple times.

His next reverts were based on the accusation, that the Verfassungsschutz source doesn't state what i said it would do. This can be falsified easily by an independent translator. I then added another source from a sub department of the Federal Verfassungsschutz. Another user edited the article. And Princeps reverted his edits and in the course of this mine, too, again without stating a reason.

I also undid Princeps deletion. He then called my edit POV. This was the first time I tried to 'lure' him to the talk page, where i had already explained my edits and was asking him to discuss their content, but with no success.

His next revert was accompanied by a simple "?" in the edit reason box. In his next reason for his reverts, he at least showed a will to produce a consent. Suddenly my sources were acceptable, and he now reworded my edits. But he presented my evidence of the cooperation between the npd and neonazis and the NPD's endorsement of neo-nazi protagonists and ideology as accusations from the newspaper etc. I think I have well documented, that they are facts and not only accusations. I tried my best to document this on the talk page, at which you might want to have a look.

Anyway, Princeps didn't discuss the content of my edits, or my argumentation. Instead, he switched his tactic and engaged in a another topic: He argued, taht the NPD can't be neonazis, because if they were, they would be criminalized and illegal. I don't oppose this statement. He introduced a line of argumentation, that is irrelevant to my edits. Because i never said the NPD are neonazis. I connected and associated the NPD to neonazis because of their practices (offering them support and letting neonazis run for offices under their guidance and party list) and I was able to source this again.

So, he thus justified his reverts with the accusation, that I labeled the NPD as neo-nazis. But, no edit I have ever made says that. I always differentiated between being a neo-nazi and cooperating with neo-nazis. I tried to highlight, that i want to point out the cooperation between the NPD and the neonazis and the endorsement of the neonazis by the npd. I tried to highlight this in the article and on the talk page, but he dind't let go of this accusation and ignored my explanations. I ask myself if he deliberately tries to get me wrong.

I provided facts from different sources - even from the NPD itself - that document their endorsement and cooperation with neonazis, nothing else. Nowhere did I label the NPD as neonazis themselves.

Sorry if i sound condescending, but this protection of the site looks like involuntarily helping a whitewashing attempt, where princeps never discussed the content of my edits, and was never able to falsify my evidences. He dind't even notify me about this block.

Please have a look at this case again and help me to understand why this happened. Thanks for your time! Kalifat (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion not being archived?

Hi there Black Kite! Since you closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incident report against Caden and another user operating under three different IP addresses, I thought you might know why the thread hasn't been archived by User:MiszaBot II yet. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been edited by anyone for 9 days, and that bot is supposed to archive threads after 24 hours of inactivity. I'm basically just trying to confirm I'm not going crazy (or stupid) before I post a note at User talk:Misza13 about it. -kotra (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, Horologium has archived it manually. -kotra (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Subhamrony

About a week ago, you responded to my AN post about Subhamrony (talk · contribs). This is just a heads-up that he seems to be back—he appears to be active in spurts a week apart—uploading a file with no source or copyright information, File:Amitabh bachchan.jpeg (which another editor has tagged for deletion). He's also been replacing images in articles with no explanation, as he has done before. Do you think anything needs to be done now? Deor (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Derek & Simon

Hello Black Kite, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Derek & Simon has been removed. It was removed by 152.2.240.222 with the following edit summary '(This article helped me. Keep it.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 152.2.240.222 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Non-free image use in Characters of 8-Bit Theater

Hi, remember the discussion about the non-free images in that article and my proposition to remove a bunch of them? I finally got around to that now. Feel free to take a look. --R. Wolff (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

iPod Touch images

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that Template:List of iPod models is in the template space because it uses complicated syntax that would make the iPod and List of iPod models articles very long. Such, any images there are intended for use in articles; it just doesn't look like it. I have added back the images in <includeonly> so they will not show up in the template. I will add FUR tags to each image for each article that the template is used in. Is that okay? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

For clickwheel iPods, the general procedure is to take a free photograph and replace the screen with blackness, because there is enough hardware to show without the interface. But with the iPhone nad iPod Touch, there is so little hardware that the interface is necessary to identifying and explaining the device. So unfortunately there really is no free alternative that would do the job. Cheers, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Heal The World Foundation Edits

It looks like you tried to roll the article back to Cameron Scott's final edit of the article. His 07:12 19 August 2009 edit was the correct version. I have been watching this article for weeks now, and there is a determined, concerted effort by Melissa Johnson's new foundation to pretend and claim a connection to Michael Jackson's original Heal The World Foundation that no one has ever proved to exist. Unsuspecting, grieving fans are finding Melissa's foundation through Wikipedia and donating money, believing it to be Michael Jackson's original foundation. This is wrong on a variety of levels.

There is NO verifiable source to prove a connection between the two foundations, and this needs to be made plain again in the article.

Cameron's edit of 07:12 19 August 2009 made that distinction clear. The current version of the article is again unclear on this point.

Can you please reinstate Cameron's corrected version?

Thanks!

All41and14all (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

National Wiffleball Legaue page

It was previously deleted because it had no links to back up proof it existed. After getting online sources and articles, I created the page again. It went by guidlines and I honestly dont see why it was deleted. Just like baseball or football, wiffleball is now an organized SPORT, and I was creating a page for a premier league that has become popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.156.241 (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Schilling

I believe your deletion of the Bobby Schilling article was completely unfair. You said "consensus" called for its deletion, but WP:PERPOLICY says an AfD discussion is not a vote or consensus-seeker. It discusses whether to delete an article based on policy. And since no one could prove that Wikipedia policy requires media coverage outside the locality, the article should stand. If I don't receive a reasonable response in 24 hours, I am requesting a deletion review. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bobby Schilling

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bobby Schilling. 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. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a word...

I'm continuing work on Derek & Simon. It may or may not be salvagable as an independent article, and I will give it a fair effort. I just found that it did indeed win an award. This site lists all 2008 nominees and winners are in bold. I am still digging. Thanks for your courtesy. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For the reminder re: edit-warring. I'm glad that you noticed I was not revert-warring, but I do appreciate the reminder to discuss more. As you are probably aware however, Jaakobou and I have a long, rather toxic history of interaction that complicates matters slightly. In any case, message received. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 10:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-free template on Reason (software)

Hi. I have removed the "non-free" template that you left on Reason (software) as you failed to provide a rationale or explanation for adding the template. If you still feel that the article deserves to have the template added, please outline your reasons on the talk page so other editors may improve or fix the article and bring it into compliance. --Two Bananas (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Images in FAs

Responded at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Non-free files; thanks for that list! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Responded on my talk. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 World Series/archive2, where I can sense a budding argument over the justification of a non-free image. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! If you have the time, any of the unstruck links at [4] need image checks for proper licensing and attribution. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mbhiii Sockpuppet at Tea Party

Hi, you recently protected the article Tea Party Protests. One of the editors of that appears to be a user who was indef blocked at least three times yesterday different IPs User_talk:65.246.126.130,User_talk:63.99.12.25 and User_talk:74.162.150.109. What is the process for reporting this? Jmcnamera (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jon the Postman

Thanks for protecting this page. I was waiting for one more disruptive edit before requesting protection but you beat me to it. It's clear that User:81.110.104.91, User:81.111.114.131 and User:Longuniongirl are one and the same, and this editor has reverted disruptively 4 times in less than 24 hours - is a block in order? They've had plenty of warning. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the courtesy

Inre this [5]. Thank you for the withdrawal. With a 2007 nomination from one group, and a 2008 win from another... I think it 'just' notable enough in a highly competitive field. One thought is that as a cancelled series, it will never have opportunities for more coverage. But Odenkirk rarely gives up... and so he may find some way to bring this back to life foe Adult Swim. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack on AfD

Hiya :) I'm a bit worried about TomCat's conduct in that thread, and the related one some way up the page. He's getting really aggressive, disruptive, abusive, confrontational, he's hounding Abductive, assuming bad faith etc. I just gave him a full warning on his talkpage, which he immediately deleted. Do you think you, as an admin, could keep a bit of an eye on his behaviour? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to be watched. Treasury tags is hounding me. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Howard Joseland

Apparently you moved Howard joseland to Howard oseland. This should actually be Howard Joseland. I just went to Help Desk to find out about rectifying the problem. What happened to the Move tabs? (I suppose I'm not the first one to ask.)

Hermione9753 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Facts that belong in the NPD article

The NPD refuses to accept non-white Germans in the party and that is a purely racist position, stating so it not POV as a few troublemakers are trying to assert because it is a pure fact and constantly trying to deny this in the article is nothing short of vandalism. Hence, it is only appropriate to include racism in the ideological section of the article.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Alert Alert

Paging GWH and the civility police. We have a code 9 in sector 11. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)