User talk:Black Kite/Archive 38

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for opening a discussion on Talk:Mordechai HaKohen of Safed. And a special thanks for being so considerate to propose the discussion be postponed till after my block was over. A courtesy I wasn't shown on Talk:Palestine#Historic_designation_of_the_Palestine_region. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I'm bowing out of reviewing this article, at least for now. As soon as the article was unlocked, Deepdish came back and started making changes. I reviewed his changes and adjusted them, trying to make them more neutral and source-compliant, and removing obvious copyright violations. Other editors, including single purpose accounts, joined the fray, and the article and the Talk page became somewhat chaotic. I tried to slow things down but was rebuffed. Nonetheless, I persisted until I logged off yesterday. But coming back today after a full day at my regular job, I simply don't have the energy to deal with it, and no other seemingly uninterested editor was involved besides me. Who knows? Maybe these editors will work it all out, and if an editor wants to complain, they can always go to one of the noticeboards to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for you to know, whom you were protecting all this time on Berezovsky page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Foundation_for_Civil_Liberties as you can see from description, this is a firm funded by Berezovski.

From the link description in the bottom of this page you can infer, that Kolokol is their "Foundation's news project (no updates since 2006)"

Doesn't it have clear resemblance to Kolokol1's nickname??? It can be a mere coincidence, but it's all up to you to judge

If you were covering Kolokol1 user all this time because Britain supports anything anti-Russian, and as far as you are Britsh then there's nothing I can do here. But if you were making judgment on moral grounds, I'd suggest you seriously reconsider everything in that dispute

Thank you anywayDeepdish7 (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have protected the page again, for two weeks. I can do little else. We need to get a discussion clear between the two "sides" here. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to request someone to judge the dispute on the discussion page? Not sure if the 'sides' would ever be able to ever reach consensus. As you can see from discussion I'm generally happy to agree on something. Kolokol1 never does though. Whatever is against Berezovsky is against BLP in his opinion. Can we request some arbiter?Deepdish7 (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Probably the best idea is to head to WP:DR. You may find editors with more knowledge of the situation there. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe I missed something but I think some issues might be solved through RFCs before going to dispute resolution. Just a thought.TMCk (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Kolokol1 finally confessed he's a person associated with the subject on Berezovsky talk page. I'm reporting him to Conflicts of Interest noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/NoticeboardDeepdish7 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
          • And please also note, that noone from that group around Kolokol1 deigned to comment on my proposed changes to the article in the discussion section during the whole last period of one week when it was locked. So locking the page now won't solve the problem - as after expiry I will start adding removed materials again, and it will be vandalised. Unless we have admin protecting page from vandalism, or dispute resolution, it's highly unlikely there will be any consensus on the pageDeepdish7 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
            • • With other words: As soon as the page will be unprotected you'll assume edit warring and falsely call any edit not conform with your views vandalism. Such behavior will resolve nothing and most likely you'll end up being blocked. You might want to reconsider your approach.TMCk (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that the disruptive editor has been indefinitely blocked and there is no danger of resumption of edit war, perhaps you'd consider unprotecting the article and removing at least some of the warning banners, so that constructive work could continue. Thanks for looking into this.--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have only just seen(by looking through his contribution history) that someone reported me for "vandalism" on the article Shepperton Design Studios. I notice that the article is now locked. However, the main issues were over the use of the word "unauthorized" which I felt to be strong and POV. I was also unaware of any "3 revert rule", which is why I did not edit the article after being made aware of it. However, I attempted to add two links, which were BOTH removed by User:MikeWazowski and/or User:CityOfSilver. Suggestions that the article could be rephrased to state that Lucas did no approve of the manufacture without the strong POV tone of "unauthorized" were removed.

here are the links(note the headlines):

[1]

[2]

Attempts to talk about this were met with responses such as

[3]

An attempt to discuss the removal of a WP:RS on the article(as I was now aware of the 3RR) was removed(although I did perhaps phrase things somewhat strong due to the high level of frustration)

[4]

Although the article is now locked, and I am now aware of the 3RR(although I am not alone in breaking it, and others seem to have been aware already), could the two links(to the BBC and FirstPost articles) possible be added to the article, at least to give a more even-handed and rounded account, then the quite frankly pro-Lucas POV style the article currently reads as? 41.133.47.137 (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I kept removing your comments from my talk page (which I'm allowed to do) because I wanted to discuss the issue in one location. You know that. I asked you at least three times to stop carrying on the discussion on my talkpage, and each time you ignored me. (I admit this discussion shouldn't have taken place on your talk, either; it should have just stayed on the article's talk.) You're still doing this, bringing a content discussion off the article's talk page to here. Acting like I deleted your comments from my talk page for any reason but that I didn't want to discuss this in multiple places is not fair. CityOfSilver 22:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing on Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover or WP:ALBUM that expressly forbids using more than one album cover image in the means that you discuss. Nothing on Wikipedia states that an article on an album must only have one version on it, and should only have two versions should one of the other versions have some reliably sourced significance. Two low resolution images still qualify for minimal usage, and there are very few solitary album covers on this project that satisfy contextual significance other than the visual identification of the album, which has been a suitable usage on the project. And I don't know why you have suggested that an album cover have a free alternative.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You are citing precedent that these alternate images are not allowed. What precedent are you referring to?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Try policy- notably WP:NFCC. The extra album cover violates #3a (minimal use - which is technically zero), #8 (significance) and probably #1, because any difference between it and the main cover could be replaced by free use - i.e. text explaining how it differs from the one shown. I have removed it again. I am surprised, as an ex-admin, that you are not familiar with our policies. Yes, there may well be other articles out there with multiple images - but they should be removed as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. I am familiar with our policies, and I know that it is perfectly allowable to have alternate versions of album covers on articles. Otherwise, the people who work on these articles would not have created a separate template to allow for their inclusion in the infobox. And if you're going to orphan an image like this, at least do it properly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I really couldn't care less if people unfamiliar with our policies have created a template to break our policies, which most of these uses will. As an admin, my function is to prevent that, which I have. If it orphans am image, the bot will pick that up. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
      • If they're unfamiliar with the policy, why do they advise people of the policy on both pages regarding the template? And this new precedent you are trying to set is probably not going to fly with the music-related WikiProjects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
        • "New precedent"?? Nothing new here - NFCC has been the same for three years at least. Frankly, Template:Extra album cover shouldn't exist, but it is valid in a very limited context as I mentioned above. What WikiProjects think is utterly irrelevant - if the article fails NFCC, the image gets removed. If a WikiProject wants to alter NFCC, there's a place for that. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, I am going to query those who watch WP:NFCC as to what is allowed and what is not. Because in my understanding of the policy, such items should be allowed, and the general practice does allow them unless a local consensus on the page does not want the alternate artwork (as was the case on another article I was working on).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
            • You're wrong , but that's fine - drop at note at WT:NFC and see what the experts think. Incidentally, you've got it the wrong way round, such as use is never allowed except in special circumstances such as I've outlined above, and local consensuses (consensi?) never trump policy. I've been working NFCC as an admin for over 3 years now, and this case isn't even contentious - seriously. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
              • The consensus at that article I was describing was against using two (radically different) versions of the cover art, which at that time was considered odd amongst articles of that type.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that after retirement of Russavia this article can be safely unprotected. None of other editors will edit war. This just is my opinion. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed that Slugslinger has still not gone through its post AfD merge. Since you were the original nominator, I was wondering if you were planning to perform the merge or if there was an ongoing discussion or anything. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I usually wait a while to see if anyone actually cares about the content, if not I redirect it with bare information. The history of the redirected article is always available for anyone who wants to expand the merge. Usually, no-one does. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I was halfway through putting together a post for ANI to ask for more eyes on this editor when I saw you'd already taken action. Let me know if you want the diffs I've put together (if anyone decides to Take Another Look or go for a Third Chance, etc) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• If you're already doing it, it might be worth posting what you've got to ANI to secure the block; but quite frankly I was only half way down the first page of contributions since the previous block before I hit the button. But then that's just me :) Black Kite (t) (c) 01:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • ... especially as the unblock request has come up already. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh darn... I am tired and my husband just got home. :-/ *sigh* KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it, have a good night ;) Black Kite (t) (c) 01:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. WP:ANI#WalkerThrough KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It might actually succeed. Hasn't WP:DRN successfully replaced the need for this? Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, my thoughts too. I just wonder if WQA causes more problems than it solves these days. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite. I know you are aware of the allegations WalkerThrough has been making about BWilkins, and your comments about having received emails from him have been noted. If you still have them, would you mind forwarding emails from WalkerThrough to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org . Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is inappropriate in that not only are both WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E almost certainly satisfied, but it's hardly fair for the woman's bio to redirect to a murder she's been acquitted of. I was actually surprised at the absence of biographical information in Wikipedia given the extensive coverage she has received over a sustained period. -- samj _in^out 21:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The page was being used to campaign for her release and proclaim her innocence. You'll see below that another editor has started a review to have the biographical page undeleted. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amanda Knox. 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. -- samj _in^out 21:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you removed all the icon graphics from the iConji article. I thought they were cool under the "Fair Use" license, but apparently you don't. I can get written permission from the copyright holder and forward that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org if I need to. As that was my first full article, if I did something incorrect please advise. Thanks. Heimhenge (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I found the "permission" form to forward to the copyright holder, who will release those specific icon graphics under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. He's on the road this week, so I hope I can reach him before those graphics are deleted (deletion as orphans scheduled for next Monday). Heimhenge (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. GiantSnowman 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The shortcut on his page is linking to a different player, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ciprian_Dinu doesn't seem to exist. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes Goodyear (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, that was a cut and paste error. It's at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan Vascan. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I was looking through the Protected redirects page looking for "Amanda Knox" and noticed it wasn't listed there. Shouldn't [[Category:Protected redirects]] be added to the target so that it shows up on the PR list? Shirtwaist ☎ 08:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Novel reason for that close :-) Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes people need protecting from themselves ;) Black Kite (t) (c) 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A new deletion review has been created regarding an article you've recently discussed. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on 3rr notice boardRegarding your comment on 3rr notice board; I did not broke 3rr, on the other hand User:Wiqi55 reverted 5 times in 24 hours. What can I do when I raised the issue on article talkpage 2 times and he does not participate in any disscusstionPenom (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Your edits at 15:03 and 23:40 October 10, and 01:28 and 02:09 October 11, were all reverts. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As the article NOW is in far better shape than it was when it was renominated 20-days-after a-keep., might you feel an incubation for a few months could work? This would serve to remove it from article space and yet allow continued collaborative editing and could hold of the (expected) drama when some newbie "fan" tries to recreate the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a good idea. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please advise and confirm why you have today protected an incorrect unsourced image on the Ebony Bones Wikipeadia page. We would urgently like some assistance regarding contentious material and images about living persons that are unsourced on the Wikipeadia page of artist producer Ebony Bones. It should be noted the current image presently on Wikipedia page of Ebony Bones is incorrect and not her. We have attempted to change this many times (with correct image via IP 178.199.109.30) only for the incorrect image of an individual be replaced again (an unknown lady with white hair) This must be removed immediately, as this is not only vandalism but potentially libellous. ---LionKing12---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionking12 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• You'll have to take that up at Commons, where the image is not only stated to be her, but also a Featured Image. In the meantime, we can only show images of living people here that are non-free and with correct licensing tags. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have replaced the picture with one that is free and is certainly of Ebony, as on investigation I have become convinced that this woman is not Ebony but one of her background dancers. I've launched a discussion at Commons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ah. Sounds very possible ... Black Kite (t) (c) 08:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You result the debate as merge to List of All My Children characters. Do you happen to be an administrator of Wikipedia? If not, will you change the destination to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters? The destination you result describes just names and one-sentence abstracts; the other is getting full. If you don't want, then I must take this to the WP:DRV. --Gh87 (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Either is fine, I've added the other one to the AFD result. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Black Kite,

I find this article to be a very useful guide to understanding language equivalents of various plants. I am a prodigious user, but only a noob at Wikipedia edits. Can you please help me understand the reason for deleting this article? If you would accept a request, I want to ask you to place it back.

Thanks, Siva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siva1086 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hello, the article was deleted after a deletion discussion which you can read here; however because I did think that it might come in useful I kept a copy of it for reference in my userarea, which you can read here. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You resulted the debate as merge with List of All My Children characters. However, what about List of All My Children miscellaneous characters? That is another possibility. --Gh87 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• If you think they would be better merged there, then by all means do so. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite. Just to let you know, SqueakBox (talk · contribs), who you blocked way back in December last year for paid editing after an ANI discussion, has filed an unblock request. I would, of course, advise discussion before unblocking, either with the user or ANI. Best, — Joseph Fox 18:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said in the AFD, I would be more than willing to start a list to merge it into; should I have created the list first? There did seem to be some traction for this idea. BOZ (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. :) Will do that early next week. BOZ (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite,

Thanks for answering my query, I do understand the rationale behind deletion. May I suggest that this article is moved to Wikitionary as one user said on the deletion discussion? It seems to me that it would be best if the words in this article are compiled into a list with a super list showing all such lists. I believe certain tags need to be added, but I don't know which ones. I would be interested in contributing to this process if necessary.

Thanks, Siva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siva1086 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re this I'm staying well out of that one. From my perspective in the UK American football is Rugby league with helmets, forward passes and three different teams per side, and baseball is grown men playing rounders… I'm assuming "lore" is some quasi-official or at least cultural thing (like rugby players referring to their shirts as jerseys). Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 23:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Given that I'm from Leeds I totally agree, but I'm not going there either :) Just seemed like an odd title. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

'Fraid I'm a Union man myself, even though I'm from Selby. I watch League and find myself screaming "ruck for it you... Ah. They can't". Cracking result in the Grand Final though. No disrespect to RL intended in comparing American football with RL, by the way - I was referring to the "10 downs and turnover" aspect Tonywalton ^Talk 23:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I have the opposite problem with Union. "Look, that's just a pile of people, what are you doing faffing around there?" :) Yeah, the Grand Final result was, er, slightly unexpected from 5th, just need a similar result from the round ball game now. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• (driveby) American football is brilliant (as Berean is about to watch his 3rd game of the day) but this American finds baseball very boring...like golf or cricket (the better cricket involves a dartboard). Was the game that played at Wembley today broadcast in Britain? Speaking as a fan, I'd agree that NFL Lore might be an odd title...it is an article of highly memorable moments; some legendary. Rugby has 10 downs? Football has four.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi, yes the NFL game was on today, although it was slightly overshadowed by a quite ludicrous 1st place vs 2nd place Premier League game. Rugby League has 6 "downs" (known as 6 tackles); Rugby Union doesn't have any limit at all... Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rugby union has as many downs as you want – there were about 15 "phases" (as it's termed in Rugby union) in one attack in today's 2011 Rugby World Cup Final. Sounds like we three should meet to discuss the relative merits of the three games. Black Kite and I are about 20 miles apart, so I suggest to be fair we meet somewhere in the middle for all three of us; say Baltimore or somewhere. I'll get the beers in ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 00:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (though I don't live in Leeds now; about 100 miles south) ;) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Rugby League makes more sense to me at the moment...I'd probably need to see a Union game to get a better understanding. This is humorous...I guess he wanted to get fired up before the game.

(commercial break during game) Mmmm...beer. :P Sounds good. British ales are best (with some credit going to the Belgians for theirs).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted the image uploaded for the article on Amarinder Singh, I'm just wondering why? The name was off but I didn't know how to correct it because someone else uploaded it. Gsingh (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Looked to be copied from an external website. Certainly not the editor's own work, unless he's a journalist, and since he claims to be 18 that's unlikely. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, the other images that he's uploaded don't seem to be his either and I'm not sure they are in the public domain.Gsingh (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rare to see such pithy wisdom as this at AN/I. Keep it up. --John (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

...where someone has mentioned you in an underlying attack page (subject of thread). Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. Nothing to worry about, I think :) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thank you.

Should all or part of User:Black Kite/Carpenter be merged back into List of people with surname Carpenter?

I will follow your advice. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I userfied the material so that other users could do that; please feel free to do with it what you want. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the material to List of people with surname Carpenter. If you see any problem, feel free to change or let me know. Thank you again. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Black Kite. I didn't wanna go the sock investigation route, but do suspect that Sheodred might be evading his block. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Block extended, article semi-protected. No need to go to SPI when it's that obvious. Black Kite (t) 08:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I removed the AFD tag and put the {{oldafdfull}} template on these articles for you Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irish_constitutional_referendums,_1968.--v/r - TP 17:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Trout accepted. Given the number of bundled AfDs I end up closing, I have no idea why I failed to do those! Trying to multitask, I dare say - fatal in a male ;) Black Kite (t) 17:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks gang! Now I'm hungry!!! ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I just tend to get distracted. Boring bundled AFD closures or TV? Too easy to lose track.--v/r - TP 18:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Black Kite. Would you please restore my comment? Thank you. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh nevermind. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If that IP isn't a belligerent sock, he's certainly doing a good imitation of one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey. What's going on with this article? You close the DRV as deletion endorsed but you didnt delete the article. What's the plan?--v/r - TP 04:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Now that's odd, because I did delete it - I remember typing the "per DRV" edit summary into the delete page. I guess that something must've gone screwy and I didn't notice at the time. Anyway, it's gone now. Black Kite (t) 07:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--v/r - TP 13:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Black Kite, is there a way you can give me access somehow to the old Donald Brawell (Senior) page that was deleted, so I can copy the hard work we did to my personal computer? That way perhaps we can use it in the future, when Don Sr has more published about him. Thank you. Wikiauthenticity (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi there, the history of the article is still there - see [5]. Thanks, Black Kite (t) 18:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Your link was to the stripped down version that others had removed all of the data. But using it I was able to get to a version prior to their attack. It is a shame that wiki doesn't want first-hand information from a little known, but talented artist of yesteryear. I really appreciate your help, so I was able to capture our hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiauthenticity (talk • contribs) 22:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite! Though I support the ban proposal here,[[6]] for such an action, I'm kind of at odds with enactment at only 66% for it. I've rarely been involved in ban discussion (and never in one with that support level), so I am not sure if I should be at odds with it or not. Your thoughts appreciated. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, including the nominator the spread was 10-3 (77%). Having said that, in my opinion for serial copyright violators (and WP:BLP violators) who declare an intention not to stop, banning is clearly indicated. Black Kite (t) 19:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot the content of the issue at hand. To which I respond "Heck yes!!!" ;-) Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

here is the correct spelling, بركى now do not put persian propaganda on this site please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2011khan (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is information, not progaganda. If the spelling is wrong, alter it. Removing it is vandalism. Black Kite (t) 15:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • then why did you just undo my section move without discussion.. Wippocryt... I will undo until you provide a justificaiton. As an admin you need to be extra careful before you start throwing your weight around.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2011khan (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
    • You can move the section back if you want (I didn't see the point of it). However, if you remove the (fa) link again you will be blocked. Black Kite (t) 15:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Black Kite, I'm at 3RR on Burki; I don't know where 2011khan is, but xe's probably close or over. I haven't explained 3RR yet, since just trying to explain sourcing is taking a lot of time and using up my patience. This issue was actually discussed back in August; ultimately, 2011khan doesn't understand basic Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV and seems unwilling to learn. I don't know where you are on the Involved scale at this point, and I know that Involved made for just this situation, because I'm too irritated to know when 2011khan is crossing the line on NPA or disruptive editing. Appreciate your assistance if you feel its appropriate; if not, I'll clearly have to take it to a notice board of some type eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I left a 3RR warning; he removed it. He hasn't reverted since. He's clearly on the edge of it with NPA as well; I suggest WP:ROPE might be the best option here. Black Kite (t) 15:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So WikiAdmin needs to know where I am.... xe's is close or over.... dare to elaborate?... now we all know where you two work... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2011khan (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the revert of me on Debito Arudou, which clearly has nothing to do with xyr prior interests is pretty telling. We'll see what happens today/tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I came here before looking elsewhere. Thank you for the ANI report; that has at least for now put a stop to the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

[7]. I find it mind-numbingly stunning that mbz1 is still agitating behind-the-scenes about her block almost 1 years later...that link she had you investigate is from Dec 2010. If this editor is trying to lay the groundwork for an unblock request, honestly I'd rather see this happen out in the open. It's not that I don't trust you, its just that I have seen far too much subterfuge from mbz over the years. Tarc (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I see your point but she asked me a question about canvassing on admin pages, I answered it honestly. I probably wouldn't have done it for a lot of blocked editors but it seemed like a genuine request, and of course you've got to remember that Mbz doesn't actually need to post an unblock - Rd232 blocked her per her own request so she can ask to be unblocked at any time, I presume. Black Kite (t) 02:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it is more complicated than that. I don't have time to go ANI diff-diving at the moment unfortunately, but mbz carried out a months-long crusade to get Gwen Gale's block log reason RevDeleted because she felt it was an unfair block, a view not held anywhere else. One admin did agree to do it (AGK?), but then a discussion at ANI overturned that. Later on...again, the thing I hate, private communication/channels...rd232 accepted mbz's offer to voluntarily be indef-blocked in exchange for the earlier log revel. So, yea, she can request an unblock, but IMO granting that would mean undoing rd232's revision as well. That is going to be one ugly AN or ANI or wherever that discussion takes place. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm certainly not going to opine on whether the block was fair or not; the question was simply whether it is correct for users to request blocks via admin talkpages; my opinion (and that's all it is) was that's probably not optimal especially when there's a concurrent ANI discussion occurring. I've notified Gwen, incidentally, and pointed her towards this conversation. Black Kite (t) 02:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, we'll see what happens from here I guess. And this is going to raise a bit of a stink, but I reverted this from the subject's talk page. If mbz wishes to view this exchange as an attack, whatever. I think we all know that making complaints about editor actions is within our right on this project. But I am NOT going to stand for her swill about needing showers and water bills and similar peevishness, regardless of whose talk page it is. No doubt mbz or a friend will restore it, if that happens, then I'll throw it at ANI or whatever the appropriate board is. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at wp:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring's talk page. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Great work in turning a pile of shit into a crock of gold, but this stands out from the end of the lead: "The issues surrounding the case were not settled for 180 years, until a Court of Appeal decision in 1984." We need to be told more. Malleus Fatuorum 05:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it sort of hangs there, doesn't it - I spent an hour last night trying to find out more without any luck at all - I suspect this may be buried in the Court of Appeal records which I don't think are online. I'll have another dig around this evening. Black Kite (t) 09:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And yes that wording is better; I was trying to link the sentence to the Macdonald quote but mine was a bit clumsy. Black Kite (t) 10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Typical - we actually had a (rather thin) article on the subject!. No problem once the case name was known. Black Kite (t) 11:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove template:disputed title or template:disputed tags - lack of a resolution or discussion does not make the tag removable.

Also if you had looked at the recent edit history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_70_(diesel)&action=history you would have seen that the subject had been discussed in the last week. Imgaril (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless I missed the memo that declared you Lord King Wikipedia, it is at this time only YOUR OPINION that the image violates any rules. Your opinion is no more valid than mine. 70.226.167.68 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, you missed the memo that says any non-free image must pass all ten criteria on WP:NFCC. This one fails at least 3 of them. Black Kite (t) 18:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well again, Lord King, that is YOUR OPINION. Your beloved 3RR says "What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first." You have not established that the image is a violation anywhere outside your own mind. I suggest you put it back unless you want to face your own edit warring charges. 70.226.167.68 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Except that the image does clearly fail those three policies. It is replaceable (#1) by a free media (text) because it tells us nothing apart from the title, it is clearly excessive (#3a) for the same reason, and it doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding of the article (#8). I have no particular wish to see you blocked, so don't put it back. Black Kite (t) 18:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• ONLY. IN. YOUR. DISPUTED. OPINION. Look, asshole, is it really that hard when things are so heavily disputed as they are in this article that they go through some discussion process? Is it really asking too much for that to happen? Is Lisa Ling or Oprah Winfrey going to lose any money during the time that having a discussion about this image would take?
• Oh, what am I saying, Lord Fucking God Wikipedia who knows all and enforces all says it does and woe betide any who dares speak or act against him. Don't worry, I won't challenge your high-handed arrogant dismissive actions again because it's clear that honest difference of opinion doesn't matter. All that matters is who can work the bureaucracy better and Lord King Asswipe Wikikpedia works it harder than a whore during Fleet Week. Congratulations.
• Now run off and report me for hurting your widdle feewings.

• No, I'm not going to report you. I'm used to people shouting at me when they're wrong. Comes with the territory. Black Kite (t) 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• If a day goes by that you don't get yelled at, do you question whether you're doing your job properly? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• While I don't disagree with your argument from a theoretical standpoint (and I see someone else iced that IP for a short termer), I went looking for similar stuff and the first thing that popped into my head has one: The Mary Tyler Moore Show. The difference might be that that one is iconic and specific, whereas a logo consisting of a US Flag with credits stamped on it might not be similarly iconic. What say you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, but the difference is, that's an article for a TV series, the one above is an article for a single episode, with exactly the same image as the series article except the title of the episode is underneath. Epic fail of NFCC. Black Kite (t) 20:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. Silly me. Our America with Lisa Ling indeed has it covered sufficiently. Maybe if they used truly unique graphics for each episode, it might be a different story? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly, but we don't use screencaps for episodes unless they genuinely hit all the criteria of NFCC, and that's probably unlikely for a documentary. Black Kite (t) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Black Kite I see you have made comments and changes to the cue cat record. I have made suggestions for updating the cue cat record on the discussion page. Would you please join the discussion and give comments? Thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

As you note Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_21#Article_titles_-_Post-BR_locomotives did not reach a solution - therefor there is still an issue with the title - you can read the reasons why there is a problem with the title there. If you can help resolve the problem please talk to me. However please note that the current titles fail Wikipedia:Verifiability, don't match the guidlines at Wikipedia:Article titles (in fact break several key ones), - basically the title is a wikipedia invention; so I'd advise against simply removing the tag. As far as I know outstanding issues with aticles don't expire.Imgaril (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I HAVE STARTED NUMEROUS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS - I HAVE TRIED TO CORRECT THE PAGE - IT'S NOT MY FAULT THAT PEOPLE AT WIKIPROJECTRAILWAYS CONSISTENTLY BLOCK OR REVERT ANY ATTEMPT TO FIX THIS. I'VE TRIED MOVING THE PAGE TO A VERIFYABLE NAME BUT WAS REVERTED

For you I have added a statement of the issue at the bottom of the relevant talk page.Imgaril (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the beleated reply i only just read your post, Thanks for the help; but bascially what your saying is you make a navigation page and you just copy and paste that to each of my user pages? Is there a way to change the colour/images though, for example i wanted this image [8] for the archives section or something , how would i do tha? And also do you mind if i "borrow" your layout? User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 14:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite,

I noticed your comment at AE. The relevant history is clear from the contribution history.[9] User Eppeechflee correctly reverted the edit of a banned user and explained as much in his edit summary. Nableezy reverted with the following edit summary: "uhh no." The most logical explanation of his edit summary was that he disagreed with Epeechflee's basis for removal (and was wrong). Alternatively, he was just being disruptive. Based on that, a revert was most reasonable. Nableezy gave no indication that he took responsibility for the edits of a banned user or explained why the edits of the banned user were valid. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• He doesn't need to. If you restore the edit of a banned editor you are automatically taking responsibility for them. OK, an edit summary would be useful, but the edit has to be assumed to be in good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary (i.e. evidence that the edit is being made on behalf of the banned editor). Black Kite (t) 16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree. It can't be expected to assume good faith or that he is taking responsibly for the banned user's edits when in response to a clear edit summary explaining the basis of removal "rv blocked sock of banned user", Nableezy reverts with an edit summary of "uhh no."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• As I said, WP:BAN is policy ("Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content"), so unless you have evidence that the edit is a direct proxy for a banned user or is in some other way against policy then you have to assume good faith, regardless of the unhelpful edit summary. Epeefleche's revert was of course correct, but your revert was of Nableezy and was therefore not reverting a banned user. As it turns out, this time no-one violated any revert limit, but if such an issue was to go to WP:AN3 then a claim that one was reverted a banned user (when it was in fact a different editor) would not be valid, and the responding admin would have to treat it as a normal revert. Black Kite (t) 16:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you understand what I am saying. "Uhh no" in response to "rv blocked sock of banned user" indicates disagreement with "rv blocked sock of banned user". It indicates that he is not taking responsibility for the edits of a banned user, but merely disagreeing with the previous edit summary.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• And I don't think you're quite understanding my point - regardless of an unhelpful edit summary, the policy states that he's automatically taking responsibility for it - it's his edit. Anyway, I don't think this is the major issue in this AE section, so it's probably not worth arguing the minor point. Black Kite (t) 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• it's probably not worth arguing the minor point. It is, actually.
• There is a long history of editors complaining about Nableezy's frivolous AE reports. In this instance, his complaints about stalking are not only with extremely weak evidence, but we have uncovered an instance of clear stalking on his part, which he has admitted to.
• His complaints about reverting on August 2010 West Bank shooting attack put him in a worse light as well. Epeechflee made a change, in perfect compliance with policy, and clearly explained it in his edit summary. Nableezy reverts with an "uhh no" edit summary. If there is any problematic behavior that deserves analysis its that edit and that edit summary.
• What is frustrating in the eyes of many editors is that Nableezy frequently files these weak reports, reports that put himself in bad light. And instead of admins telling him, "hey, knock it off with all these silly reports," we have this overdrawn dramafest about nonsense and wikilawyering about the wording in BAN.
• So while I typically would not waste my time trying to show you who the original culprit of disruption was at August 2010 West Bank shooting attack, when this type of nonsense has been going out for a while and wasted so much time of other editors, I feel obliged to point it out. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)