User talk:Black Kite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Black Kite
User:Black Kite/Archives
User:Black Kite/Articles
User:Black Kite/Working
User:Black Kite/Toolbox
Working On

Deletion review for Elizabeth Chambers (television personality)[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Elizabeth Chambers (television personality). 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.

Request Another Look at Robert L. Gordon IV[edit]

There is a discussion concerning possible sock-puppetry at Robert L. Gordon IV, which is now only a redirect to America's Promise. However, America's Promise does not refer to anyone named Robert L. Gordon IV. I tried to enter an RFD nomination for the redirect, but the redirect page is locked. It appears that you fully protected it, presumably to salt it against re-creation by sock-puppets. If it is necessary to keep it locked, can you please then nominate it for deletion (and possibly for real salting)? Thank you.


Sorry for any bad feelings about our disagreement over the sources there. When I saw the press coverage I wanted to check there was no whitewashing nor any undue weight or coatracking of the story, mindful of the other recent case regarding a British political figure, Grant Shapps, which I am sure you have followed. It may seem ironic (I hope not as I respect your intelligence and general caution about BLP matters) that I restored and added negative material to a sensitive BLP given my highly conservative record regarding BLP and BLP sourcing. I think on this occasion though, that as the sources are good, a restrained mention of the story is appropriate. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with you here, or more generally in article talk, but I feel it is important that we strike a balance between allowing ourselves to be used to promote hit-pieces against political candidates, and allowing said candidates (or their representatives) to sanitise their Wikipedia articles. I wonder what User:Newyorkbrad would say? Very best regards, --John (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And I've also invited review of my actions at AN/I in case anyone thinks I have acted improperly. Obviously I don't think I have but I thought it only fair to have scrutiny. --John (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you have either. Thanks for the note. Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yi qi blurb[edit]

Why did you switch it back to 'membraneous wings'? Consensus (including the nom) was for gliding. Abductive (reasoning) 16:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • which was false, per the article. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
    • No, the article was wrong. I have corrected it. These guys couldn't flap. "No evidence presented so far, he added, showed that Yi qi had the ability for powered flight." Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, but the original blurb was wrong because it claimed this was the first dinosaur capable of gliding flight, which is incorrect. Also "We don’t know if Yi qi was flapping or gliding, or both" from your link. The only thing we know as far as I can see is that it has such wings. Please correct me if I am wrong. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
        • This whole thing is messed up. Was there another dinosaur with flight of any kind before Yi qi? Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Why do you say it was not the first dinosaur capable of gliding flight? Abductive (reasoning) 23:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
            • The articles have changed a lot in the last week, but looking at them now the blurb should properly say that it's not proven; based on Yi qi, it is surmised that the other members of Scansoriopterygidae were also gliders, and they were contemporaneous if not earlier. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
              • But it was the discovery of Yi qi that caused the revision to the Scansoriopterygidae article. Scientific discoveries are like that; especially in paleontology the there is always an older example out there, undiscovered. This is why I argue at ITN for blurbs to say things such as "pushes back the date" when other people want to say "the oldest". The newsworthy part is the discovery/publication. Abductive (reasoning) 18:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)