User talk:Black Kite/Archive 53

Mark Wahlberg

I presumed you locked this article due to the poor sourcing being inserted? However over a month seems a bit excessive. There seems to be some support for using other, more reliable sources over at RSN, so perhaps you might reconsider? Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• More because of the edit-warring, really. I'll drop it down to a week and if a consensus is achieved it can be removed. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

You have been involved in this issue so I think you should see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_topic_ban_for_Andy_Dingley Werieth (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Black Kite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:58, 4 July 2014 (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.

—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Gunspotter is back

A few months ago, you blocked 99.12.124.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was disruptively adding unsourcing details to plot summaries, primarily concerning unnecessary detail on pistols and rifles. Right after his block expired, he's started up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nitin Gupta

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nitin Gupta. 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. Rahul6301 (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Vasant Dhar

You asked for my opinion yesterday about the probable notability of this professor, and I responded hat he was clearly notable. I then edited the page to be more in accord with our usual style, but the page has been since edited on behalf of the subject by an editor with an announced conflict of interest; I think those edits promotional, and reverted, and warned the user about COI. (I also realized on further inspection of the sources that the subject may not be as clearly notable as I originally indicated.) Although nothing I did was done as an administrator, if my edits are reverted I intend to take no further action to avoid excessive involvement, but if you then felt it appropriate to nominate for AfD or to edit the content or deal with the user I would have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for taking the time to validate my submission about the edit filter false positive. I'm certain you've saved some other users from being as exasperated as I was that night. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Adaptation

I have adapted article Večići. What can I do?

Thanks, in forward

Yahadzija (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think there's an issue with the filter, but it's only a warning so you should still be able to create the article. If not, can you send me the text via email (click Email This User on the left-hand menu) and I'll create it. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

CS Universitatea Craiova (football)

Why did you warn me for edit warring? User:VladShev‎ is altering (without supporting his claims with sources) an information that is taken from the official site of Liga Profesionistă de Fotbal, that is the Romanian governing body that runs the Liga I, the top professional division of the Romanian football league system (link: [1] - Anul infiintarii: 1948 is translated as Year of foundation: 1948). In spite of being warned twice on his talk page, this editor insists to modify this information. Cricrucra (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Aa far as I know, reverting vandalism does not count as a revert when applying 3RR. Modifying an info from the official site of Liga Profesionistă de Fotbal without offering any source (I don't know what source could he have provided to be more reliable than this one) counts as vandalism in my opinion. Cricrucra (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

At least protect that page for persistent edit warring if you are not going to block this vandal!. Cricrucra (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? It is not vandalism to modify a sourced date? If I change the population of United States in the infobox and I write 1,234,567,890 without giving any source it is not vandalism? If you don't mind, I will make a new AIV report, I want the opinion of another admin. Cricrucra (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, it is not vandalism. But tell me then what source could be reliable enough to change the date from Liga Profesionistă de Fotbal (I don't think that the declaration of a random legal adviser or a newspaper article could be). Cricrucra (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sordid methods

NFCC#9 is quite a simple policy to follow, and it is equally simple to block editors who wilfully ignore it after multiple warnings; I hope it will not be necessary in this case. Black Kite (talk)

Really Kite, so this is how you operate, threats and innuendo. I trust you quite pleased with yourself. I think you would be well-advised to take an even longer "break from this ridiculous fucking place". Vranak (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, yes, that is how this ridiculous place operates. You follow the policies, or you don't. Sometimes, if you don't and you persist in doing it, you get blocked. This is especially the case with a legal policy such as NFCC9. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Open door?

Please allow me the chance to speak my concern at Jimbo's. CGram (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• My problem with this is that you are only targeting Dan56. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of 30-second samples of music on Wikipedia and I'm guessing that since the a huge amount of those don't come from works of 5 minutes or more, they also break your "Harvard rule". So if you want to raise it as a general problem on Jimbo's page, then go for it, but not targeting one user. Fair? Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I guess I see your point about that, but if my concerns about one editor's habits are ignored and shut down, what motivation do I have to look at others? If we ask Dan56 to change his ways we are setting a great example for others. If we look the other way, this will continue, and at some point it will put the WMF in a bad light with the media and the law, which is paramount to Dan's feelings. He restored them several times even though he knows they do not meet NFCC#3. Kww reverted Dan's restoration of 7 images from agencies. This is a serious concern with this user, and if I'm not the right person to stop this I wish someone else would explain to him, because he won't listen to me. CGram (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you reduce protection?

Per Talk:Skyhook_(structure)#Protected_for_a_month. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

CS Universitatea Craiova (football)

Hello! the thing that I was afraid of has happened. About 5 hours after the article protection expired, the year of foundation was again changed without giving a source. I don't know if it is VladShev logged out or somebody else, but I am sure that the article must be protected again. Cricrucra (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

"I think not"
Thank you for solving conflict by suggesting practical solutions and pointing out limits precisely, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian(12 February 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 215th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of albums considered the best

Hi Black Kite. I've just stumbled upon the above deletion discussion. I see you closed and deleted it with the rationale of "THre is probably an article here, but as pointed out, there is too much OR here for this to be it.". Isn't the opening part of that ("THre is probably an article here...") OR in itself? I didn't see what state the article was in before it was deleted, so I can't comment on what potential OR there was (or wasn't) before it was deleted. Basically, I'm looking at the first step of WP:DRV - WP:DELREVD to see if anything can be done to save this article. Surely the OR could be removed from the article? Did the article have cited info from sources, for example, Rolling Stone, Billboard, etc, citing albums that have been considered the best? Looking at the related article for films, that was taken to AfD four times and kept. Appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• The problem was that the article took 14 "Best of" surveys and only used them, and then added up the rankings. This is OR because, as the article actually admitted, methodologies for a lot of these surveys are flawed (indeed many give respondees a list of albums and ask them to choose their favourites - also, older albums are likely to perform better as many albums regarded as classics didn't exist when one or more surveys were run - hence why there are only 2 albums from the last 25 years in the list)). I would have thought a proper article on this would have included a lot of material actually giving reliable sources for "this album has regularly featured in best-of lists" and so on. List of films considered the best is better and gives such examples, although still flawed. Shall I userfy the deleted article for you? Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, right. I wasn't aware of the ranking system. Yes, agree that's OR. Was expecting it to be more on the lines of "Dark Side of the Moon" is rated no#1 by x, y, z in their annual poll, with more critical commentary, etc. Yes, if you can userfy it, that would be helpful. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts/List of albums considered the best. Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sambo Rambo1

You blocked him the other day, now he's back doing the same thing. Would you take a look please? Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indef now. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks very much. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Levellers

FYI:

• PBS moved pageLevellers (political movement) to Levellers: revert undiscused move (use WP:RM) for controversial moves)

Per WP:RM#Undiscussed moves

-- PBS (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What alerted me to the move was DPL bot ( (adding incoming links template; 30 or more links) to the dab page. Levellers is an article with well over 100 links. I think you will find that it is by far the primary usage in reliable sources.-- PBS (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Links are irrelevant as far as primary topic goes, though. I was looking at page views. The two articles have approximately the same views per month, and that's not even accounting for the fact that anyone heading for the band would have to go through the political movement first. On that basis, I'd even suggest that the band is the primary topic. Therefore, rather than shifting the band across to the primary topic, I thought a dab would be the best idea. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No harm was done, and I wanted to inform you of how I came aware of the move and one of the reasons I moved it back.

I now understand you logic but I disagree with it :-)

The page Levellers is where it is now after a Talk:Levellers#Requested move back in 2005, and of course consensus can change, but I think that consensus should be tested with another RM.

--PBS (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn article

I replied to your comments on the page; I'm not really sure how notifying people of such things works these days. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Doxxing of Wikipedia Editors

I linked to a site which doxxed multiple Wikipedia editors (including myself) on talk:Gamergate. I didn't realize that it had doxxed another user as well (and a minor at that; I didn't actually care about my own doxxing, as such information is already publicly available on the internet). I would appreciate it if you could revdelete what lies between this revision and this one. Probably still needs to be noted on the talk page. Incidentally, if you recognize Nathalie Collida, tarantino, James P. Persica, and Eric Barbour (the people involved in said doxxing) as being associated with Wikipedia accounts, this is pretty unacceptable conduct on their parts and I'm going to start administrative action against them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This was dealt with as best was able, and is now on the administrator's noticeboard. Sorry to bug you about it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of Paige VanZant

I realize the votes on the deletion discussion were in favor of deletion, but I did not get any sense that you addressed the arguments I made in favor of inclusion or that you checked any of the sources in the article. It is my view that your decision to delete VanZant was a mistake. While pageview counts is of course not an official guideline, it is my experience that when a page gets hundreds of views per day, and over 5000+ over a three-week period, that there is definitely public interest in such a person, and that pageviews correlate with notability. Sources here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here suggest that Paige VanZant meets the general notability guideline. I respectfully ask that you please reconsider your decision or kindly please explain why you believe deletion is proper.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately it is not my function as closing admin to check sources or indeed do anything further that determine consensus; and there are four editors suggesting delete here versus one (yourself) suggesting keep. Clearly a closing admin can discount comments that do not explain their reasoning (or, indeed, are clearly erroneous) but I cannot see any obvious issues here - this simply comes down to a disagreement as to whether the subject passes WP:GNG. You have the option to take the matter to deletion review but I would point out that DRV does not examine the issues again, it merely opines on whether the close was correct. If you would like me to userfy the article for you to work on, please ask. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for explaining. I have a copy in a sandbox page. I have a feeling that in six months, she'll have new sources, and I can refloat the article then.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Your Deletion of Page: The Miniatures Page

Thanks for the work.

Crow the Saint (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

AE ping

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result of the appeal by Darkness Shines. This appeal is running out of gas unless those who favor lifting will agree on a specific modification. Notifying you as one of the possible lifters. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

List of banned users MfD

Hi Black Kite. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

An IP just edited the MfD, and from the content I'm surmising it was you; did you edit that page while logged out accidentally? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Worm has been an admin for 4 years and the IP said 7 years, so it is probably someone else. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I just realized you may be talking to Black Kite. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Whoops, yeah, that was me. It's fairly well known where I am, but I've RD'd it just in case. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my Edit Warring warning

I am aware of the 3 revert rule, and have no intentions to revert indefinitely. You have written "To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." This is exactly what I have done and none of the other people involved in this edit war have engaged. From the very point when I made this edit, I have asked for a response on the talk page. All 3 people who have reverted my post (yourself included) have not given me a response. Could you kindly do so? Bosstopher (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think NorthbySouthBaranof's comment on the talk page (which sums the issue up) together with mine and others edit-summaries make it quite clear, do they not? Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not think so. Hence why I wrote a response to them before making my edit justifying my position. Baranof's comment only explains why the sources shouldnt be used to accuse anti-GamerGate people of being behind the DDoS. It does not justify leaving it out of the article altogether. I have posted why I think this is warranted article space in the talk page, and not of the edit summaries have even remotely adressed any of the points i have made, with the first edit comment made by Tarc [unless I failed to understand it] being just plain factually incorrect. A response to my post in the talk page is warranted in this situation. Bosstopher (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Since, even if the event actually happened, we don't know who was actually behind it and whether it was relevant to GamerGate itself, that's (one of) the problem(s). Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I have addressed this point in both my talk page response (which brings up the comparison to the indiegogo hacking), and in the edit i made itself, which specifically points out how the claim that thread page for GamerGate on the escapist [rather than any other part of the website] was DDoSed. Could you kindly respond to these points on the GamerGate talk page itself. I ask this so that other editors can join into the discussion. Is it also ok if I copy and paste this discussion into the talk page for further clarity or do you object? Also what reason do we have to suspect the DDoS didnt happen at all. Nobody has brought up any reasons for these suspicions on the talk page. Bosstopher (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Gresford disaster

The reason for my doubt about the copyright status of the song is that, currently, anonymous works in the UK seem to be copyright protected for 70 years (see for example commons:Commons:Anonymous works). Although this would put it out of copyright in the UK this means it would have been in copyright on the date of restoration (see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights) and so would be copyrighted in the US for 95 years from publication and so still in copyright in the US (again see the commons page or WP:PD. I'm far from convinced by my reasoning but am concerned enough to tag it. Do you have a different take on the situation?

• Not at all, as I said I wasn't sure, so since the article was on the main page I thought the best course of action was to remove the possible copyvio until we could work out exactly what the situation was. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin

As you are an Admin, you should say so on your userpage. When you made this edit, I looked and then reverted as an NAC closure. Please do not expect us gnomes to look at the admin list, or guess. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Small question

Sorry to trouble you with minor question: in your closing of the EC ANI you mentioned the loss of 2 editors this week. I assume Sitush was one; who was the other? I missed that. DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Flyer22. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. DeCausa (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete logo file, too?

Hello Black Kite, In addition to the deletion of Patexia and Talk:Patexia, shouldn't File:Logo for company, Patexia, Inc.jpg also be deleted? Thanks for your work. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• If it was truly non-free, yes, but really that logo shouldn't be tagged as such - it doesn't pass the threshold of originality (see WP:TOO). Having said that, it's now effectively useless, so I'll get rid of it. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)