User talk:Black Kite

Your mileage may vary.

Talk Page archives:
2007:01-02-03-04-05-06-07-08
2008:09-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19
2009:20-21-22-23-24-25-26-27-28

Userfication

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE. Apparently missed my request? --Gwern (contribs) 21:35 27 November 2009 (GMT)

Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 30 November 2009 (GMT)

Francis ngokumu

• Francis ngokumu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you salt it as well?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Also, could you perhaps change the color of the text here to something other than white? I can't read it. Thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Salted it (and the correct capitalization too). The text here looks black to me - what browser are you using? Black Kite 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Firefox, and now I see that the problem seems to be caused by something above the barnstar, as everything else works fine above it... I don't know what's wrong.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, I'll take a screenshot.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the hell you just did, it works, slightly, now. All the text below is fixed, but now specific parts of Gwern's post are white.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I got rid of a few bits of redundant html. But it looks fine now in FF 3.0.15 to me ... Black Kite 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, I'm using 3.5.5, and it looks like this to me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I think I just fixed it, seemed to be the problem of an unclosed font tag.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'd just seen it. Thanks - it gave me an excuse to update Firefox anyway :) Black Kite 22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

:D, hehe. Glad I could help.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Deprodding of Kim J. Henriksen

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Kim J. Henriksen, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Yekrats (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Functional temporalism

A curse on you, Black Kite. I said I required more time! This is heavy-handed editing at its worse. MaxWeberJr (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• No choice I'm afraid, but I have userfied it for you - see your talkpage. Black Kite 09:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite the above, I see with interest that MaxWeberJr now admits this was a hoax and is proud of how long it ran. I shouldn't have wasted so much time poking holes in it. I also now recall a previous encounter with the article's other passionate defender, when I tagged as hoax an article he had written; he indignantly denied it, but failed to return with sources. Worth keeping an eye on both of them. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I've sent you an e-mail regarding this article. Thanks, Lear's Fool (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt Kassel

I really hope you'll reconsider the deletion, without necessitating a DRV. It should be clear to any good Wikipedia community servant that consensus in a particular situation trumps any sort of general principle--and the consensus that had emerged in this particular situation to keep trumps the general principles you cited in your closing rationale. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, I don't see how there was a consensus to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Kassel. Will you reevaluate your close? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'd like it to DRV please, I think there's an important point at stake here. Black Kite 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi BK (re a block you placed)

[1]. This has to deal with User Talk:Boneyarddog, an block that you placed a couple weeks ago. Just an FYI and alerting you to the discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well that was complete bollocks. Obvious sock, obviously created by an experienced editor who knows about CU, created purely to revert on a 1RR article. That's the last time I touch anything to do with The Troubles (or British Isles naming dispute for that matter). Some other poor fucker can sort them out. Black Kite 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)