User talk:Black Kite/Archive 20

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for removing all the crap in the Physical Traits from the Astro. Signs! If people continue to add the "Physical Traits" section to the 12 signs, please REMOVE AND WARN THEM ! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR REMOVING THOSE CRAP!!! kashimjamed (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello re Snake anatomy

Would you be willing to let me continue working on Snake anatomy ? Peace, rkmlai (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you be willing to either undelete the page so I may get the source (to put at rkmlai/snakeanatomy and work on it) then re delete it, or send me a copy to my email ? rkmlai (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But I had done significant work on the article after someone else had posted the copyrightviolating material. There were significant changes and references on the talk page that I was working on as per conversations on the talk page. Please reconsider or send me the info so that I can use my work. Thank you for your consideration. rkmlai (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit counter

I noticed you added a user's edit count to their RFA page from the Wannabe Kate tool [1], I was wondering if in the future you might consider using a different edit counter. I don't know the technical details but basically I just don't think Wannabe Kate really works to a particularly good degree of accuracy anymore. If you compare the results to those from other edit counters (such as this and this) you can see that in this instance the user's total undeleted edit count was reduced by about 5%, their mainspace edit count increased by about 7% and their filespace edits completely ignored. I realise that these may seem like petty differences but if there's a better alternative I don't see why it shouldn't be used and I think the differences can be inflated depending on particular editors pattern of contributions. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK it is supposed to be done with Interiot's tool. — neuro^(talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your input requested again

Your input is requested again, at User_talk:Hammersoft#Time_for_the_next_step. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My Username

Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding my username. I understand that for many individuals in the UK the term 'spastic' is deemed a derogatory or insulting term. However you may be surprised to know that it is in fact a bonafide medical diagnosis. In the USA for example the term 'spastic' or 'spaz' is considered a playful, inoffensive term for somebody that is uncoordinated or clumsy in the way that they move their body. And is used interchangably with words such as 'geek' or 'nerd'.As you can appreciate I chose this user name, not to cause offense, but to poke fun at myself as I am clumsy. I am very sorry if this cultural difference has caused offense to you or any other Wikipedians. If you have not already done so you may like to peruse the articles Spastic and Spasticity. I look forward to hearing you resulting opinion Spastic on elastic (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is used by kids and some adults as a joke, as is derogatory use of the word 'gay', but that doesn't mean either are politically correct or appropriate for an encyclopedia. Sticky Parkin 18:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if we deal with this cultural misunderstanding after we sort out the article merge weirdness that led this user to approach ArbCom? I think it would be much easier to work with the editor on this issue if he or she did not suddenly (if mistakenly) perceive him- or herself to be under attack from all sides. (Also note that most Americans don't make the spastic = palsied connection until someone from the Commonwealth indignantly makes them aware of it, in the same way British people (until relatively recently at least), were surprised that "fag" had an entirely different meaning across the Atlantic.) --Dynaflow babble 20:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly "indignantly" - hence the gentle uw-username template. Black Kite 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That was actually more in reference to how I was informed of the synonym by an English exchange student several years ago, off-wiki. In my mind, it's the prototypical response. Your templating, on the other hand, was a model of politeness, and I wish I had been informed that way as well. It would have kept a perfectly good date from crashing and burning. --Dynaflow babble 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that's unlucky.... Black Kite 20:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's alright. Her Australian housemate turned out to be much more sympathetic to the peculiarities of the American idiom. --Dynaflow babble 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard it called that before ;-) Black Kite 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Saint Pancakce == Rachel Corrie

Please see my arguments at WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_redirect Your interpretation lacks any support in policy, and I'd encourage you to revert the deletion of Saint Pancake. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I followed up on my talk page in case you didn't watchlist it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DRV

Per your request and since people seemed to just be piling on rather than dealing with whether G10 was appropriately applied or not...

Deletion review for Saint Pancake

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Saint Pancake. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. If you want to restore it and send it to RfD instead, just let me know and we can yank the DRV and stick it in RfD. In DRV, I must, of necessity, argue that you made a mistake in applying G10. I'd rather see the appropriateness of the redirect decided on its merits, and I see DRV as a regrettable stop on the way to getting it to the correct venue. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yo

I'm here for my progress report. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 14:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katelyn Wyler:The Movie

As a result of disruption encountered in that AFD, you issued a rangeblock against 200.88.94.0/24. It's pretty obvious that the creator of article is Alis.Payan, as in WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alis.Payan. Can you tell me what account created Katelyn Wyler:The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so I can get it blocked, or just block it yourself if you concur?—Kww(talk) 17:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

crossed out comment

I've crossed out the comment. OK. I think it is true but crossed it out to keep the peace. Fixanerror (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My RFA

Kite, thank you for the nomination on my RFA, and the tremendous amount of faith you gave me on it. I will do my absolute best to prove your faith right. rootology (C)(T) 07:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Permanant Block Request for 84.9.144.107

I am requesting that the IP at 84.9.144.107 be permanently blocked (rather than a 48 hour block) as they haverepeatedly violated WP:NPA and WP:HA and they have yet to make a constructive edit. See the history of their user talk page at User talk:84.9.144.107. 84.9.144.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Thank you for your consideration.Smallman12q (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice is a dynamic ip. My apologies. (He'll probably come back and vandalize my page so I'll know where his new ip is ^.^) Thanks for responding. Smallman12q (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for taking care of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Lego Network (2nd nomination). --EEMIV (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you object to including provisions that allow for a single non-free image as a last resort if no free images exist? I think this will help bring some of those who object to the support side of the house. At the same time, it also gives a little more ammunition because it indicates it is a last resort; if a free image exists, then those images can't be used. My efforts show that almost all college football teams (which seems to be the general genre of those who oppose), if not all, have a valid free image available. In the interests of not cluttering up the talk page any further, please just respond here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... the problem is that for most season articles there's almost certainly going to be a free image available somewhere (even if a team photo or an action shot) - it's just finding them that's the problem sometimes; wording like the above just lets people take the lazy way out and stick a non-free logo in there ... let me think about it a bit more and I'll get back to you. Black Kite 07:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's kinda the point. It allows for extreme cases where some school doesn't have a non-free image available, but those cases should be few and far between. Near as I can tell, every FBS school has a non-copyrightable logo. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yo

I'm here for my progress report. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 15:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Unitt

Are you sure the revert was to the last version free of copyright? Trainmoney1 seems to be claiming it was formerly hosted on the site he gave but is no longer. See this comment on my talk. I was looking into the wayback machine archives to see if I could find it, but have not come up with anything yet. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I was wondering if you'd be able to help with the AN section currently ongoing. Cheers Panlatdelkwa (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

MS

Since you were the latest blocking admin, i come to you. I feel strongly his edits should be rolled back. This rather uncivil user (who i do not think is MS) seems intent on keeping his edits in the encyclopedia [[2]]. I think this is a problem, because it will encourage more daily game playing (he get's to "win" by making a few edits every day with a new account). By my count, there are at least 15 already created socks of his still extent. I leave it to your judgement to do something or nothing.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you think Skomorokh is is using sockpuppetry (I strongly doubt it), then the correct venue is WP:SPI. Black Kite 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, as i said i don't think that of him. I'm worried that he is enabling a banned user.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting images

As what you have done here, please, if you want to delete images from an article, make sure that you merge cells, that is, so that ugly tables will never occur.

Another, you made the article List of Mayors of Valenzuela City very very very messy, so much that you left the section of 1964-1997 blank and putting it all on 1997-present mayors list. Maybe you noticed that the dates WILL NEVER be accurate to those given by the table, so please, whenever you do MAJOR edits check if your doing will make the whole article ruin. You should have known this because you are an administrator of Wikipedia. Thanks and God bless.--Johnlemartirao (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I left the cells there so that they could be replaced with a PD image if necessary. Of course, if you hadn't tried to use non-free photos of living people in the article, I wouldn't have had to delete them in the first place. Black Kite 09:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing a fully protected page

Hi,

I made a request for a fully protected page to be edited but no one has acted upon it. To see what the probleM is see here. Thanks --DFS454 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See the protectors talk page because users have said it doesn't work for them either. It appears like a soft redirect. Also this image File:DBZ Game Music series.PNG Is a montage of non free content , I think this qualifies for deletion. It is also derrivative work. What's your opinion? --DFS454 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

sign articles

That's fine, I don't have any really strong opinions about astrology and what should be in those articles, but I don't like the fact that the user we're dealing with just removed the entire sections, which do seem to have good information too. Now I don't want to block because I'm kind of involved in the edit war now, but I do believe that what the user is doing is very close to vandalism. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Image issue

I noticed your involvement in another image discussion, and before I show how little I comprehend the swiftly changing sands that are non-free use, could I get your opinion on this image? I woke up to a IfD tag a little while ago (tagged as copyvio, which I don't think it is). I've broached the topic with the listing editor, but wanted to get feedback. I'd note that I have since listed a rationale for the non-free use. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would update you: the nominating editor was blocked for edit-warring, etc. in excessive IfD. How do I go about getting something unlisted with IfD if it appears it was done in bad faith? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Adoption ended

This is just to let you know that, as per our discussion on my talk page, we've ended the adoption. I've adjusted the topicban wording accordingly. -kotra (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Black Kite 22:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tom Lennox

Kite,

You recently blocked Tom Lennox for 48 hours due to disruptive edits and personal attacks. First - THANK YOU... he has been quite the handful as his talk page and history clearly reflect. Second - is there any way to either significantly extend or make permanent the block vs. just a 48 hour suspension. Clearly his history demonstrates that his destructive edits and revert wars are more or less in his nature, and he ignored repeated warnings from numerous editors. Honestly, a 48 hour suspension is not likely to get the message through to him, and once the suspension is lifted, it will only re-expose the numerous pages he has been "editing" to further, malicious destruction. Thanks for your assistance and information. -scr Srobak (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war and as the other party Srobak missed the opportunity to provide a good example for Tom Lennox (i.e. by starting a discussion on the articles talk page). Although such an example may have had no effect on the editor, a permanent ban could have no positive effect on wikipedia - the most recent edit to the contested content comes from a Brazilian IP, which could be a TOR exit node used by a banned editor. Lklundin (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't believe the destructive edits should prevail while a discussion is had with myself on the talk page. :) Srobak (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Black Kite/Archive 20's Day!

User:Black Kite/Archive 20 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Black Kite/Archive 20's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Black Kite/Archive 20! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Awwww, thanks :) Black Kite 09:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Need an administrators opinion

As far as I know we have had no contact, which is why I would like you to take a look at this deletion [3], and tell me if it seems justified. I would appreciate that. Some conversation on the deletion is here [4]. This is a very small article, but the disputes so frequent and unpleasant that the article really need some administrative attention. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

While you're there, please note that Malcolm Schosha has been previously blocked for edit-warring ([5]) and personal attacks ([6]) at this article, and promised to leave it alone ([7]) as a condition of being unblocked. In this latest instance, he started 30 hours ago by changing the edit I had just responded to and "accidentally" refactoring my response with an open blockquote tag. Then over the last 24 hours, he repeatedly gave said response the subdiv title of Complaining about the Previous Version ([8],[9],[10]), and deleted a later comment I made asking him to stop ([11]).

Also, please note that Malcolm has a long history of "accidentally" rewording the lede to versions that assert that calling people "self-hating Jews" is accurate. (eight such examples in one week) His standard evasion when called on it is that it didn't happen, but if it was then it was unintentional. ([12]) arimareiji (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, it seems that you are not around at the moment. Perhaps I should have left this elsewhere. Arimareiji's note to you, above, will give you an idea how contentious the situation is, and why I said that the article seems to need some administrative attention. You will also note that, although I wrote my first note very rapidly, I was careful not to suggest that I was a candidate for wiki-sainthood. My preference, in a situation such as this is, rather than giving a list of what I think is wrong with opposing editors, I would rather that administrators take a full look and decide for themselves the nature of the situation. Of course, I did not request attention with the thought that I am in the wrong; but, if a fair look at the talk page indicates I am in the wrong (partly, or entirely), I am sure you will let me know me know. I have taken so much criticism from Arimareiji (above is a very small sample) that one might think I am a sort of wiki Charles Manson. The Self-hating Jew article is currently a goodfaith-free zone. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption

I have had to update my post on AE from yesterday, I added new text and corrected mistakes on references only to have it all reverted after their block. Suggestions welcome, --Domer48_'fenian' 13:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

FfD to delete Time cover image

Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mouth breathing

See 149.254.219.226 (talk · contribs) - their edit summary on the edit to that article may indicate that they're the same vandal as the one you just blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

M. I should have checked the IPs. Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Hey Kite, I have a edit to suggest to one of the articles that falls under my topic ban. Do I need you to make the request for me? Or can I make the request myself? Caden S (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Fred Phelps

Hi Black Kite, I have left a question/discussion for you at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fred_Phelps

Thank you Sibruk (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

I have raised comments you made in a past discussion here. To insure that I did not misrepresent you and your opinions, could you please look them over, and if you consider them inappropriate please let me know and I’ll strike them from my post. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

cheers, thanks for reviewing those articles. incidentally, I re-applied move-protection to "Fraud" as it's unlikely to ever be moved and the AN thread may make it a high visibility target. –xeno (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

COINS

THANKS KITE. Smile sent back to you. I'm beginning to see. I don't like it but I understand. Editor:Miguel has done due dilegence to incorporate his images and is always a GFE. Your explanation is appreciated.--Buster7 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you a personal question?

Hi,

Since you do seem to be quite active in ANI, why was the topic archived without any action? I shown a clear evidence of teaming up against me and nothing was done, not even a comment "... we will do notihng about this...". you might all be right about copy vio, but then the policy will have to change to clearly says so, but I have said so many times that this is not the case I am bringing forward. Can you let me know what is the criteria to archive such a discussion?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikistory

You recently deleted Wikipedia:Wikistory as a G4 (recreation of content deleted via a deletion discussion) after it had been restored by User:JzG following a DRV. I am unable to find a MfD for that page that was closed as Delete and the consensus at DRV was clear that the page does not qualify under any of the speedy criteria. Could you point me to the deletion discussion you believe demonstrates concensus to delete or consider undeleting in favour of a full discussion at MfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Axmann8

Hello Black Kite. Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) — Aitias // discussion 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Check this Astrological page in wikipedia for false traits and for misinterpretations

Maybe you should check this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_sign and also check the history page there too...User Someone963852 tried to add false traits-false claims and misleading citations with URLs that do not backup his statements, he misinterpretated current sources by purpose (just check what www.Astrologyzone.com and www.artcharts.com really say and what this guy tried to write in there...). Isn't his behavior Non-neutral, hypocritical and disruptive and or is it my fault again ?? --SotosfromGreece (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

About [13]

A comment like tht makes my whole day better. DGG (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look please

Hi Black Kite could you have a look here please. I have removed this section per WP:TPG, this is a thinley veiled attack on Domer. The editor states that they have nothing to contribute to this article. I have warned the editor about using talk pages for personal opinion but they continue to put the content back. They have now accused me of bully tactics because I removed the content, Thanks. BigDunc^Talk 13:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind what my critique was - that 60 + references for a minor topic is absurd and that certain editors are guarding the article. Also bear in mind Big Dunc unilaterally attempted to revert what I typed without consulting me, or even attempting to Assume Good Faith (Worse again, he's accused me of being a troll). Frankly I'm amazed and stupefied by his conduct. NewIreland2009 (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor has now continued personal attacks by calling myself and Domer gobshites also this editor was blocked by Barneca on 18:17, January 23, 2009 for 24 hours due to Personal attacks or harassment BigDunc^Talk 14:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked yourself before, and maybe if you didn't act like a little schoolchild gobshite you wouldn't be called one. Honestly, reverting, ignoring, accusations etc. Thats not the traits of someone who isn't a gobshite. I'd say your a fifteen year old billy no mates still in school, the fat spotty kid in the corner with no real prospects. Thats certainly the way you act. Is that personal enough for you, you irritating, infuriating little man? NewIreland2009 (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite. BigDunc^Talk 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Black Kite

Thank you for your response to my request for an Administrator... i have sent you an email. Sarah Katherine (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reconsider

Black Kite, could you be prevailed upon to reconsider the permanent block of Afroghost, perhaps changing it to something with a shorter duration than forever? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I had put this edit on the AN/I discussion, but since you may not have seen it I am copying it here

Concerning the permanent block of Afroghost. My understanding is that when editors are being disruptive, such as vandalizing articles, the intent is to end the disruption and is not punishment. I remember, in a discussion I had with El_C about an IP user who had vandalized an article I was editing, El_C gave the IP user a five minute block which solved the problem. It was my understanding that it was El_C's common practice to start with very short blocks, and extend them only if that was demonstrated to be necessary to end the disruptive activity. Perhaps if the block of Afroghost had been one week, or one day, or five minutes that would have been enough to end the disruptive activity. If an administrator starts with a permanent block, it is impossible to know if less would have been enough.

I am not saying that your approach is wrong. I have no way of knowing. Just trying to point out that other approaches are possible. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Notabilitypatrol

Hello - unfortunately there's a lot more back story than I suspect you've been told. I added some controversial statements that were fully sourced with 22 citations. "Controversies" sections are rather normal for radio personalities - see Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, etc.

The topic of this article, a radio host, may have extolled his fans to "patrol" his wikipedia page and remove these fully sourced statements that were, admittedly, crtiical. The page(s) suffered a spate of extreme vandalism from newly registered and one-time users that resulted in various IP bans for socks, semi-protection of pages, warnings, etc. I also received death threats from these users on my userpage and in talk pages.

I certainly don't have a POV to push regarding these articles, but I suggest you may want to follow-up with some of the editors who have fan club user buttons for this article topic to determine if they do. They have been making frivolous complaints, or complaints that don't give you the entire picture. I'm sorry if you may have been misled by them. Thanks, as always - Notabilitypatrol (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

That works for me

And in case you hadn't noticed, the IP editor is back. O Fenian (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

An Irish-born British (Ulster Scot) mathematical physicist and engineer is however a clear depiction of his nationality and profession :-) -- Crowsnest (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree, which is why I wonder if we need the qualifiers in the infobox. Black Kite 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. -- Crowsnest (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Two "nationalities" and an ethnic group is a bit longwinded for the first sentence though. O Fenian (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye, it reads a bit awkwardly. Such are the issues when people are inconsiderate enough to be born in places that currently aren't in their original states. Let me have a think about that one. Black Kite 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaming accusations

I've raised your accusations here. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Moshe Yaalon

Hi! Regarding your revert here. Moshe Yaalon was the previous Chief of Staff of the IDF (Israel Defense Forces). This article is most definitely not 'spam' and I see no reason to have it removed from the article. I assume that you removed the article since you were unaware of who its writer was. Currently he is a Knesset member on behalf of the Likud. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw it also, after checking Ilana81's contribs. I do think this one was OK, however. Perhaps Ilana81 is affiliated with this institution. Many of the edits she made (the external links added) seem to be reasonable, relevant and decent. Well, I only checked two - but I assume the others are similar. In this case, I think the link should stay. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. As for me, I'm an anti-Zionist myself and not really a Likud supporter. I do, however, believe that external links do not necessarily need to be 100% NPOV. It might be better to place some more links to balance it. For example, check the first few articles on this page: http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/chareidiview.htm . Quite a different view. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

go away

(1) I awarded the Barnstars to myself. The reasons for doing that are my own and, frankly, don't concern you. I don't mean that as an insult or attack, I'm simply stating a fact in a very direct way because I appreciate the amount of incoming communication you receive and I imagine you would rather not have to sift through platitudes. Unless you show me self-award of Barnstars is a P&P violation I'm going to replace them.

(2) I have accused someone of wikistalking because they are; unless you have some higher level engagement to contribute don't just prance over yelling "don't do this!" and "stop doing that!" It is non-productive, non-collaborative and exceedingly hostile. User:Black Kite is not the King of Wikipedia. If User:Black Kite needs a reminder of the appropriate tempered, collaborative and thoughtful role of admins I would be happy to arrange that.

(3) Unless you are able to give me the courtesy of replying to the message I left on your Talk page which provided you more background on the situation in which you've allowed yourself to be manipulated into (clearly without taking the time to investigate the full facts of this situation), I would appreciate you leaving no more messages on my Talk page. The Talk page is a forum for dialog, not a forum for one-way berating which is what you are using it for; a reply from you is neither required nor desired.

Warmest Regards, Notabilitypatrol (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I Have Made an Alert Against You

This message is to inform you that a Wikiquette Alert has been initiated, naming you as an involved party. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a courtesy message in follow-up to the above to notify you that the wikiquette alert has been judged and, (1) you have been found at-fault and censured for abuse of power, (2) a voluntary request has been made to me to remove Barnstars from my page to which I have voluntarily agreed to comply. Please direct any future comments to the Wikiquette page. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite - Disregard the above statement, and instead, focus on mine; If you review the WQA above, you'll note that I addressed some recent edits that you made to this user's page. Again, while I understand the reasoning behind the edits, I cannot IGF support the execution of them. Instead, this should have been brought to WQA, as the self-awarding of barnstars is technically bad Wikiquette. We've discussed it, and the user in question has removed the content.

In the future, maybe a less "heavy-handed" approach to this kind of issue would be more apropos, and I would be glad to assist, anytime. My regards, as always. Edit Centric (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm not sure why I responded to Dragonfly's question and made an edit at Narg without either checking the history or scrolling down farther to see if anyone else had replied, except that I was sick today (having some withdrawal reactions to an antihistamine that I didn't suspect until I read the Wikipedia article ... even my doctor didn't know). You probably didn't consider it a big deal, but I'm usually careful not to make an edit that might come across as overruling another admin without checking with the admin first. I'm feeling better now. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban wrongfully reset again

An admin User:Stwalkerster has reset my topic ban by claiming I was being incivil on ANI. That's not true. I was only being honest on what I saw over there as censorship. Furthermore, he/she counted the same dif on my topic ban page as two separate incidents. Both actions are wrong on this admins part and they are also threatening to block me. This is crazy. Can you take a look into this and remove this wrongfull reset of my ban? Caden S (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kite. Have you spoken to he or she yet? If not, I want to ask another admin to look into this. Caden S (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thaddeus Dod

Thank you for catching this false hoax tag at Thaddeus Dod.--Jwilkinsen (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cellebrum Technologies Limited

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cellebrum Technologies Limited. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  Chzz  ►  14:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route N7

Based on the comments within the deletion discussion which you closed, do you feel it would be now appropriate for me to go ahead and merge the articles as the majority of comments suggested? Most of the time in that situation, the AfD would have been closed as "Merge to x", I'm not criticising you, I just would like to clarify! :-) Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Grand Exalted Caden

Hello Kite. How are you? I know you watch me closely on here and so I know you've seen and read the recent AN/I on me. The more I read that thread the more disappointed and frustrated I become. How is it that you find this report acceptable? I don't. I was openly, personally attacked with the most brutal incivility I have ever seen on wiki and the community, including you, clearly approves it. Why? Let me refresh a few highlights for you. User:XMarX said:"CadenS isn't being incivil, he's just being a flat out racist." How would you feel if he called you such an offensive term that is untrue? XmarX then said:"What is this, a chapter of the Aryan Brotherhood?" How would you feel if that was said about you? He then said:"he's no better than the Grand Exalted Caden." How would you like it if you were implied to be a member of the KKK ("Grand Exalted Black Kite"), imagine that? How about the "lynching" jokes that were made by both Baseball Bugs and XmarX? Do you think they were being kind, generous and loving? The message is clear to me that there's a double standard on wiki. Have you read XmarX's talk page? Have you seen his edit summaries? Both his talk page replies and edit summaries show incivility again and again towards several editors. But this is okay right? Because only "Caden" gets warnings and threats, right? Not Xmarx right? Ah, of course because I'm seen as "bad boy Caden" and therefore I'm forbidden the right to defend myself from personal attacks. An editor like XmarX is allowed to do what he wants to others and never get warned or blocked because he's such a "good boy" huh? Okay I get how it works around here. Since I see that the community has given XmarX their stamp of approval on AN/I, does this mean that my new username will be changed to the Grand Exalted Caden? And will "Saint Bugs" be giving his holy blessings? Gosh, let me change my signature asap. Obviously, I have no say in the matter right? Well I guess that's settled regardless of how I feel or think because I have no rights here. Am I making a point(s) here you ask? Yes, I am. The point of a rotten double standard and the lack of true fairness. On top of that, I've lost all faith and respect for the wiki system since it doesn't work. The Grand Exalted Caden (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		A big thank you for dealing with all those vandals and deleting pages during the time non-admins couldn't edit! :) Versus22 talk 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

i regard the present discussion at ANB a discussion, not an dispute. perhaps we might even work together on a suitable process--the result of trying shortcuts in controverted situations is usually more trouble than a previous public discussion would be. DGG (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dog poop girl

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dog poop girl. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. neon white talk 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination)

Please reconsider the closing to this. You have ignored the major points made. The fact that this is not a news event was established by the provision of several major non news sources which demostrate lasting significance to this event. Please explain why these were ignored? and why you closed with a result that does not in any way reflect the discussion.[14][15][16][17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon White (talk • contribs)

I came here to say the same thing. It wasn't just a news item, it was a historical and noteworthy event. That is why it was kept the first three times someone tried to delete it. Just because it got news coverage, doesn't mean that is all there is to it. It was culturally significant for being the first time internet vigilantes did something on such a scale, the first and as far as I know the only major time that happened in that country. The overall reaction from the internet community, should be noted also. Dream Focus 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dog poop girl

Would you perhaps consider clarifying your closure further and explain exactly what you discounted and what you took into account to avoid any misunderstandings. The 4th nominator called it a "non-notable single event internet meme" which presumable points to WP:ONEEVENT which is about not writing biographies for people notable for one event. It doesn't preclude articles about the memes themselves thus the original nominator and per nom votes are out. Then there are the keep votes that argue mentions in big publications without actually saying what is mentioned. (Non-trivial is not just about the size, but also about the content) and delete votes by people like Jack Merridew who just call the article shitty or "something you'd find under "Weird News"." which obviously isn't based in policy. If several people suggest merging or redirecting as an alternative in the discussion a rough count of that and a check on the reasoning behind it should make the close a clear thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• If the sources mentioned it as part of a larger discussion on Internet vigilism, that would be the most convincing argument for me. If it's part of a larger thing in the sources, it should be covered in equal detail here. (I think User:Uncle G/On sources and content mentions this; not policy but a well-thought out page anyway)

Still, on a side note, "it's been kept before at AfD" is a convincing argument when the nominator doesn't explain what is different from the previous nomination (he called it non-notable and is if I read your response correct, one of the comments that was eventually discounted). When people renominate an article ad infinite it's usually because they hope to finally stack the vote the 'right' way. We should discourage people from renominating articles with bad reasonings or when there's no particular reason to assume the consensus has changed. I would have relisted the thing because after discounting, there wasn't much left. It would encourage people to use proper reasoning and actually look at the sources in detail. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Blogs can actually be reliable. The crucial point is not whether it is formatted in a blog format, but whether we can accurately determine who is responsible for the content. For example the Writer Beware Blog is maintained by the SFWA and the writers all confirm their involvement on their personal websites. In a case like that we can convincingly attribute the blog content to actual people (and experts) making it a reliable source. And blogs that are literally connected to official websites are also reliable sources for quotes of the person owning the site. Craphound.com is the official site of author Cory Doctorow and would be a useful source in articles about internet freedom despite its blog format, because we know the opinions expressed belong to the author. Oops, that's been enough lecturing (sorry!) I'm pretty sure you get my point after a post this long. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Though relevant in this case, even passing mention isn't always a problem. I've seen articles in which passing mention is made of an actor winning an Oscar. Unless the publication is particularly unreliable and known for spreading false news, that would be a fine source (though it's probably easier to find a source that mentions this in combination with other stuff) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Neophytesoftware

FYI, this individual has ignored your warning and reinserted the rant yet again. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

Black Kite, what you said on the Preity Zinta talk page is not true, or say, not right. After the images were re-added by me, you changed to oppose again[18]. Your oppose was there on the FAC and the article still got promoted, because many editors disagreed with you (as it can be eaily seen) and Raul decided that depite your oppose the article is worth to be an FA. If you see the FAC now, your oppose still stands and did not withhold the promotion of the article.

I would therefore ask you to mention that on the article talk page to make things clear. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

abbarocks ban

Hi, this block log says you'll update the link when it moves; I was interested in seeing what abbarocks did to get his first block to be indefinite, since I seem to be embroiled with the same opponent (THF). Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajinder Kumar Kamboj

Hi. Just letting you know that User:Sze cavalry01 has reverted your formating of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajinder Kumar Kamboj and has restored their personal attacks, multiple votes, false sigs, etc. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for resolving! Taroaldo (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks Black Kite! I'll promise that I will never do that again.--The Wandering Traveler (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Allplot

Template:Allplot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Blooper (Talk) 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)