User talk:Black Kite/Archive 46

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 10ticks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heinemann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Reporting Dispute Resolution

Dear "Black Kite". This is in reference to the article "Greater Middle East". You recently blocked me for a couple of days for editing article "Greater Middle East". I am not sure why I was blocked, because I am trying to keep the article in context. In fact, I have explained the deletion twice in the TALK section under "Relevance of article". This article has been consistent in context from 2006 until February 2013. For the last few weeks, an attempt is being made to generalize the article to the extent of triviality.

I have opened a dispute resolution for this case which you can see at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Greater_Middle_East — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.25.103 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Organizational Logos".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC) POV editor and harassment As an administrator who is familiar with the WP:LGBT project and related articles, could you please take a look here: [1]? Thank you so much. --Scientiom (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Post-merge deletion Hi mate! Per your close here (thanks again!), some merger work has now taken place at William V, Prince of Orange, adding material from Government of the Dutch Republic in exile. The material merged is generally that which was highlighted at AFD as being of some use. There has been no challenge to the AFD close, material has now been merged and I think the original article can probably now be deleted. Would you rather we ask another admin to do that or are you happy to take a look? For the sake of technicality, there's also been a (very) brief discussion here. Cheers, Stalwart111 04:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Understand the need to keep the redirect for attribution. Thanks for taking care of that - much appreciated! Stalwart111 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC) AC/DS comments requested Hi, as an administrator who has recently been active at WP:AE, you may be interested in AGK's request for comments at User talk:Sandstein#Draft of discretionary sanctions update.  Sandstein  15:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you Thanks for taking care of the Acoma Magic sockpuppet. I was adding more evidence when I encountered an edit conflict, and saw that you had already closed the SPI. Much appreciated. - MrX 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC) You've got mail! Hello, Black Kite. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 14:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page. Message added 15:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. It wuz me (as I'm sure you guessed) Elen on the Roads:talk to me 15:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC) ANI Please, remove the protection as soon as possible. I understand that it is sometimes necessary, but I'd hope blocks would prevent the disruption soon. Thanks. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Off-topic but I just noticed your comment at the top about arb "Articlespace edits in 2012"... Jesus... that's probably the most alarming stat I've ever seen on the wiki. Crazy days. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Scott Burns (voice actor) Hi, you deleted this article back in January as a G4, but I cannot find the original AfD... GiantSnowman 19:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Perfect, cheers. GiantSnowman 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heljareyga (album) (2nd nomination) Hi, you closed this nomination as merge into Heljareyga. However, Heljareyga is just a redirect to Heljareyga (album). When I relisted it earlier today, I thought about merging into Týr (band). Could you please have a look. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for that - I have fixed the AfD and the redirect. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK) I can see where you got the numbers to support that close, but I gotta say that the delete arguments, as a whole, were so ridiculously non-policy-based in that case, that I would have been tempted to ignore the numbers and close per policy. There are simply too many editors who don't understand what WP:BLP actually says, and instead think that anything that makes anyone look bad is unsuitable material. Unfortunately, if poor behavior happens to be documented by reliable sources, it's fair game. Still, the closing statement could have been much worse, although I disagree with deleting the redirect--absent any policy-based reason for deletion, it should be retargeted to the season. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I made a small/really big mistake in a sock investigation report I filed a report asking to investigate User:Goo86 as a sock of User:Acoma Magic. Unfortunately I wasn't paying attention and opened it up under User:Acoma magic. I have fixed the particulars within the report, but I can't move the report and am unsure about the technicalities of my mistake. [WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma magic|Could you take a look at it]] and make sure everything is in the right place? Thank you for your time.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, all looks fine. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC) thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Mr Iwachiw You should Google this guy; it's fascinating. Sued NYC for $1.6B in damages. Perennial candidate; ran for Mayor on the Green ticket in 2001. Vexatious litigant. For example. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC) your closure of a case where the guy admits he is hounding me Concerning this [2]. I have some questions I really need answered. If someone admits they sometimes check someone's contributions, just to follow them to some place they have never been before, just to argue the opposite of them, then isn't that in violation of the rule? If they know they can get away with it if they only do it now and again, always after arguing with the person somewhere else, is it acceptable? I listed three examples of places he could not have possible found his way to unless he followed me, and he does not deny that. He states he knows the rules, and as long as it isn't constant, he believes he can get away with it. Can you read through what I wrote, and not let him sidetrack the discussion like he always does in such cases? And ANI was the right place to bring this up, since I need an administrator to look at what he has done and what he has said, and tell him he can't do that. Dream Focus 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Unblock request Know anything about this unblock request? ‑Scottywong| confer _ 19:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Well, it's an obvious sock fairly clearly from its first edit, it was SPI'd as a Belchfire sock (which it appears not to be) but it could be at least two other indefblocked editors active on that article whom I won't mention here. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I think I know who you're referring to, but would you mind emailing the names of the other editors to me for a comparison? Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I don't have email access (to my WP email) at the moment, but I've commented at the user's talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Roman polytheistic reconstructionism I think this should be unprotected and have given my reasons at ANI. It needs revising or deleting, and I don't see how keeping it protected will help. I can see why you did it but I think it is time now to allow it to be edited. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC) About WP:ANI#Personal attacks., Indecency and And insults!!! Black Kite, perhaps this shouldn't have been closed that quickly? I've notified the alleged IP miscreants, and am just about to ask Florence if they want any talkpage comments rev-del'd.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Fine to rev-del them if it's necessary to do so - I didn't bother notifying because it's clearly the same person IP-hopping. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC) 109.173.98.64 Please see admin Boing's talk page regarding IP 109, who's on yet another proxy server. I see you blocked him. Thanks. But he'll be back with many more. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Oh, no doubt. But all we can do with proxies is block them as they appear. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I dont know man I think you got him, he is the center of 76.189.111.2's life maybe thats why he misses him so. -Your God — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.165.255.252 (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 122.165.255.252 is another proxy. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Nice of you to show up again - thanks *presses block button* *yawn* Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Welcome to a fun-filled day of Whac-A-Mole. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC) MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Cradlewood Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Cradlewood, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Cradlewood and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Cradlewood during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Sadly, I don't think this film will get made. (frowny face) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 26 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Midori (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Re User:Omnipater Having looked through the user's posts on WP:ANI, I'm quite strongly reminded of indefblocked User:Theodore7. 2006 RfAR here. ("Institutional memory" is my middle name.) Well, perhaps the rebarbative manner is typical of true believers in astrology. They probably feel beleaguered here, so in a way it's not surprising. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC). AIV Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC) New Article - India Is Hi there, I'm working on a new article called "India Is", a series of competitions hosted by Indian Public Diplomacy. Possible for you to review the article? Link: [[3]]. Any feedback would be great. Much thanks. Shivam Sharma 23:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivam.s88 (talk • contribs) You're mentioned At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel, the subject of the RfC has decided that an incident where we disagreed from 2009 is relevant enough to bring up. Feel free to respond as and if you see fit. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I've commented there. I think "Meh" sums it up, frankly :) Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Discussion at Talk:Anastasia_International You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Anastasia_International. Entyre (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC) British Pakistanis You honestly think I will discuss further with Andy? Who has already used his usual fallback of implying that I am a racist? Ain't gonna happen, sorry. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I'm just pointing out that it's not only Andy who disagrees with you. You're just going to get yourself blocked if you keep re-inserting this section, seriously. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The section is already there, it is just a few lines in that section. Take a look at the article history, you will see all I did was add sources and rewrite to accurately reflect them. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, I looked; and you and Andy have reverted three times today. Now the section's been removed by another editor, and a third editor has weighed in against it on the talkpage. You've got to default to the third part of BRD at this point. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Really? An essay And when they give to reasons within policy? As they have singularly failed to do? Then what? And as ATG is now doing his other usual and calling for a topic ban at ANI why should I even bother? He always does the same bloody thing, calls those he disagrees with a racist, misrepresents what has been said on a talk page, then calls for a topic ban. The pattern is always the same, and he will just keep saying no regardless of how many sources or what policy based arguments are put forward. Sometimes I do wonder why we even bother to try and edit this bloody site. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Of course life would be easier if he had even looked at the sources used in the edit [4] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC) What the sources actually say In this way, then, a more homogenous crowd was created. What began as an ethnically mixed crowd of men and women at the Anti-Nazi League demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police on the boundary between the city centre and Manningham. It appears that the police were simply implementing a strategy that had been suggested after the 1995 riots had spread from the Manningham distrinct into the city centre (Bradford Commission, 1996). — Bagguley, Paul; Hussain, Yasmin (2008). "Accounts of How the Bradford Riot Began". Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 72. ISBN 9781409491347. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) The homogeneity of the crowds that clashed with the police in Bradford, it turns out, had much less to do with the collective consciousness of Asian youth and much more to with how conflict was policed. Because the police were mindful of the need to protect the city centre, they pushed the protestors back into a neighbouring district that was populated primarily by British Pakistanis. Consequently, what "began as an ethnically mixed crowd […] — Gadd, David (2008-11-06). "Baying mobs and other inventions". Times Higher Education. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) So now you can match sources to the content purportedly supported by them. Enjoy. Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC) It is page 73 not 72 of Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain And what you have quoted from the THE is not in the book, I had not used that as a source as I have only been looking in GBooks. Is a book reviewers comments on a source RS? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Good Humor "It's the gorillas I feel sorry for" Lol that actually made me laugh! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Satoshi_Nakamoto undelete request re Satoshi Nakamoto. Given bitcoins subsequent meteoric rise in popularity since the deletion, I think it should be re-considered. Bitcoin is the hotest new development on the internet this decade and the man who did it gets deleted from wikipedia, seemingly largely because he's using a Nom de Plume and so not much is known biographically. The works of the mind are 90% of your experience on the Internet, so it can not diminish recognition of the technical accomplishment that the author chose to use a Nom de Plume, and not reveal his True Name. There are many significant technical and literary works that were published under Nom de Plumes or anonymously, including for example some of he founding documents of the USA. The page as I recall what it said contained plenty of interesting information, and the question of "who is satoshi nakamoto" is even the subject of an upcoming documentary film, dozens of prominent media articles, and the question will likely remain of historical interest in perpetuity. I presume you realize the bitcoin currency has a coins in circulation in excess of $1billion as of may 2013. The innovations in bitcoin relative to the state of the cryptographic art are significant, and the implementation itself has been recognized as a work of security coding in its own right. This is not a trivial implementation, and the cryptographic ideas that were invented by Nakamoto and incorporated into it are new, innovative and significant. I hope I put this in the right place, finding wikipedia process for undelete request a confusing maze of cross links exceedingly confusing. Adam2us (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Hi. The content wasn't actually deleted, but moved to the Bitcoin article at Satoshi_Nakamoto#Satoshi_Nakamoto. If that section is all we have on him, then I suspect it isn't enough to justify a stand-alone article. Could it be expanded at all? Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC) thats true, however it seemed rather shorter than I remember. And much of the justification for merging int bitcoin page seemed to be downplaying the relevance of bitcoin. I am not sure what tipped it, but there were quite a few poo-poos of bitcoin. Bitcoin's rise to $1b market cap and VCs queueing up to invest in it has shown that was way premature. There is some more information on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto and I think there is more info in different locations that perhaps could be collected if a reference to the reinstatement was to be posted on the bitcointalk forum. For example was some discussion of whether Nakamoto was aware of related systems predating bitcoin. He cited Wei Dai's B-money but not Nick Szabo's bit-gold. However Wei and myself had both received emails from Nakamoto and confirmed this publicly that Nakamoto claimed not to be aware of B-money before I provided him the reference in response to him sending me the abstract to his paper. Szabo himself http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2011/05/bitcoin-what-took-ye-so-long.html and Gwern http://www.gwern.net/Bitcoin%20is%20Worse%20is%20Better wrote some quite detailed and well researched information about the related systems that predated bitcoin. Probably some of that is wikipedia referencable grade. Adam2us (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Alan Weiss [5] Thanks. 88.210.112.33 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Anastasia article Kudos to you for trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in the Anastasia article. Here is freely available US government records on Anastasia legally obtained: https://anonfiles.com/file/aef320abb7a0a30961a713a610b989d3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entyre (talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Deletion of Ben Duscher article You decided to delete this article although point 3 of the following criteria appeared to be met. Could you please provide your reasoning as I plan a deletion review. Athletes who compete in Australian rules football are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below Has appeared in a match of the Australian Football League. Before 1990, appeared in a match of the Victorian Football League. Is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league. Best wishesNimbusWeb (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC) This is my second request for information as to how a consensus was reached in relation to point 3 of the criteria above.There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. NimbusWeb (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Deletion review for Ben Duscher An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ben Duscher. 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. The-Pope (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC) India Is Hi, I'm currently writing an article on 'India Is', an initiative of Indian Public Diplomacy Division of the Ministry of External Affairs of India. Since I've participated in the India Is competitions twice, I thought I'll put it on wiki too. Would be great if you could review the same. I've tried to add as many reference links as possible. Thank you. Look forward to your feedback. link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/India_Is Shivam Sharma 12:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Sigh... And now I will have to wait for the block timer to run out before I can clear his page... Well done, Wikipedia. I surrender to you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.202.32 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC) You can't remove that template anyway. The block notices, yes (when the block runs out). But not that. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Use of RevisionDelete on The Name of the Doctor. Thank you. Phillip A (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC) The Exoneration of Mike Sholars File:Mike Sholars PG.jpg The Exonerator You helped have coach Mike Sholars Wikipedia profile deleted, we now ask that you help build a new one. Questions of Notability where the main issue, but by viewing the TV interview below, or referencing some of the many media references here: www.MikeSholars.com/Media.html and here: Sat 1 TV is Germany's fourth largest TV station with 40 million viewers Coach Mike Sholars' Notability was disputed, but not justly . www.Youtube.com/MikeSholars Your help shall be sincerely appreciated. Kind regards BootyChaser (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Please take action. :) Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at :wp:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Message added 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Qworty Hi Black Kite, I was about to close the Qworty thread but you beat me to it. I felt obliged to add my closing commentary to it; I hope you don't mind. Obviously it agrees with yours; I reached a slightly different conclusion about the site ban and I would have left that for AN, but there is plenty of support for that as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC) A follow up question, is his site ban indefinite? Just curious, because then, wouldn't you add this user's name to list of site-banned users with indefinite durations. Thanks and sorry he pulled this shit on you guys. Sincerely, WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Well, that's what the discussion seems to approve, yes, and they're on the list. Black Kite, I'm saying this correctly, no? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Is he banned per ArbCom as well, or just community banned? WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 18:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Community; it's just as binding as an AC one. NE Ent 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Hmmmm. Alright. Thanks, ladies and gentlemen. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 19:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Blah, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically modified cement (2nd nomination) while I was editing, causing me to modify it after you closed it =p Transcendence (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry :) Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Explain please Can you tell me why you chose to archive this while the question from WaltCip remained unanswered by BWilkins? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Possibly because it was a rhetorical question - and because I amended the template that I had used to notify you that the talkpage was locked, thus fixing the problem in the future? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Not sure what amending the template refers to, but this shows the accusation of "abuse of the unblock process" remained right up until my unblock today. That was why I cleared the page when I made my first request so as not to further mislead anyone looking into my case after your invlolvement, something you simply reversed without bothering to comment. And how was it a rhetorical question anyway? Infact it wasn't even a question, it was a statement that you had done something wrong. There is no way anyone would see such a thing and think simply declining to respond either way was appropriate. Either you agreed and would have corrected the error, or disagreed and justified it there. You did neither. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Because we usually substitute templates, what was in it at the time is what stays wherever it was used. I have clarified here in the edit that I made. Still, realistically your sole reason for having access to your talkpage while blocked is to prepare and submit your unblock request, or for discussion related to the block and unblock - other uses such as attacks, etc are therefore in theory abuses of the unblock process, so it actually does fit the definition (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC) So, you noticed and fixed the apparent error, but then declined to explain the reason for it to the person who pointed it out, and then didn't notice it hadn't been fixed on my page, but this is all OK because it's not an error anyway. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Exactly. (BTW: it's funny that you're arguing and angry with me, one of the people who actually supported some of your arguments) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC) You supported nothing. You lectured me about the 5 pillars, then proceeded to only enforce one. You're only a supporter of the sort of editors who are at ITN right now claiming that the Woolwich terrorist attack is just one of those things that happens now and again in London and the press are just making a big deal out of nothing. Surface civility is the only thing they watch for, at the expense of ensuring they contribute to the debate in an informed and truly respectful way that helps develop an informed consensus. And now I understand why. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Bodu Bala Sena Hiya, Thanks for your help. Anon user is "outing" me again, and also changing the text to what I've posted on the talk page. Is it also possible to get my User page protected? They've been posting their garbage about me there too, and reverting my removals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haminoon (talk • contribs) 10:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Oh also outing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bodu_Bala_Sena&diff=prev&oldid=556986795 Sorry new at editing - still trying to work out how it all works. Haminoon (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC) The Aldren Staff You recently deleted the page I created, The Aldren Staff. I was wondering if you could clarify the reasoning, for I am not familiar with either G11s or PRODs. I was removing the unambiguous advertising as you deleted the page. Ben Shipman (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Regarding dispute hello. I saw what you wrote. Yes I agree it's a triviality, and that's part of my point. And I already discussed this (at length too) on the article talk page. The IP user doesn't care. So what do I do? I just don't like the fact that it was HIS last revert that remained just before your block protection. But the point though is that there's no "consensus" for his trivial whining about this matter, and there arguably doesn't need to be, as my modification is not some earth-shaking or horrible thing. But valid and sourced and standard. So again, what do I do here? Gabby Merger (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately in the end where there is a dispute that is causing an edit-war and no side is obviously "correct" per Wikipedia policy the standard way of dealing with it is through protection. I hope the dispute can be solved on the talkpage. Obviously, when this happens, the page will be protected in what is for one side the Wrong Version, but this is of course unavoidable. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Rules I know them. Film Fan 08:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Black Kite - for info, I've raised this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Request for assistance Since I know you are well versed and this is a rather lengthy discussion can you please close Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Savez_izvi.C4.91a.C4.8Da_Bosne_i_Hercegovine as an uninvolved administrator? Werieth (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers I wish you would take a second look at this. My (obviously involved) observation is that most of the "keep" responses did not deal with the issues with the supposed sources. The only extensive source (the book) isn't independent, and the news "sources" all appear to be derived from press releases or (in a couple of cases) are by one or another of the grandmothers themselves. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Editor's Barnstar Thank You..! ThinkingYouth (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC) India Against Corruption and Aam Aadmi Party Thanks for stubbing India Against Corruption. WP:EW has again erupted with the entry of User:Sitush and see this [6]. Please lockdown the page for another fortnight to your stub. If you have the time please also similarly stub and then lock the rival group's page Aam Aadmi Party where I have set out how that article is contrary to Wikipedia policies in considerable detail. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC) AcorruptionfreeIndia, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing - I think you need to do a bit more research before assuming edit warring and collusion ;) - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC) I did say that my changes weren't the sum total of what may be removed; I cannot see any issues with Sitush's edits. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC) User:Michał Sobkowski I noticed the AN post related to the person stalking this user cross-wiki. One of the accounts, User:Qźwa Sobkowska, used on several wikis for attacks, is also globally locked. The other acct I found in March was User:Kuba Jasiak. I think I'll start a list of suspected socks at User:Pacynka Sobkowskiego, which looks to be the oldest acct. INeverCry 16:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Black Kite, thanks for cleaning! :-) Actually, all of the above accounts are socks of User:Stepa. In pl:wiki pl:Stepa is blocked infinitely. Since 2010 he created dozens of illegal socks. It is his typical action after block of his sock, to add extremely vulgar comments and pictures in blocking admin account in other wiki projects, e.g. User:Karol007 (an admin and CU in pl:wiki) was attacked here or in Wikinews (just an exemplary diff, more attacks are to be found in history). Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Bodu Bala Sena FYI: Sockpuppet investigations Mbrahmana. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Hi User EricaL2003 is back and doing the same huge edits to the Paris Hilton article that got her blocked the last time. I let you be the judge of what needs to be done.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC) A cup of coffee for you! I think you might be needing one! PantherLeapord (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I should be completely awake really, it's 11am here! Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Exide (band) & sock puppet concerns Hi there - I see you were the administrator who deleted the discussion of the Exide (band) page after this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exide_(band). user:Stainedclasssinner - who previously removed multiple AFD templates for the Exide related articles, including one more than once after being instructed not to - has now recreated the page Exide (band). I am also suspicious the user may be using the account user:DokkenRocker100 as a sock-puppet, as the two seem to very frequently edit the same pages - their edit histories show a lot of concenrtation on Exide-related articles and bands that had been linked to Exide (e.g. both have edited Skull Fist a lot, a page which one of them at some stage added something along the lines of "the band is part of the New Wave of Tradtional Metal along with bands like Exide" to, a line I found on several other articles that the two accounts had been editing). Both users have the distinctive misspelling "knowligable" on their userpage, too. When I first noticed the pair I looked back over their editing habits and noticed that the now-blocked user user:Thrashgod500 had also regularly edited articles about Skull Fist and Exide - two very niche, obscure bands especially the latter (Exide has almost no web presence beyond their own self-created social media accounts). The date that account was blocked? The date the "DokkenRocker100" account was created. Even after Thrashgod500 was blocked from editing, Stainedclasssinner gave Thrashgod500 a barnstar for their contributions to heavy metal on Wikipedia. There's something fishy going on, tying those three accounts together. If I recall, deleting administrators should be contacted about deleted pages (that would be you) but sock-puppets are dealt with on a specific area of Wikipedia; since the two issues are intertwined, it made more sense to contact you first though. If possible, could you take over investigating this issue and resolving it for me? I have blanked the page for Exide (band) but beyond that am unsure what I can do, really. I haven't been involved in this sort of thing often - I'm just an editor at heart, I don't pretend to be anything more - and unsure what is considered correct course of action when it comes to rule-breaking and accusations and things. When I enter a discussion on an article I get somewhat invested in seeing the right thing happen to it which is why I'm not walking away from the issue, but this is definitely an area where you would probably be more equipped to handle it than I am. Hit me up if you need anything from me on this matter. (Chill (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC))