User talk:Black Kite

Your mileage may vary.

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

onTV logo

I'm very sure that the SVG logo was used before the PNG version. See [1], [2], [3], and [4]. The onTV branding launched in 1997.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for bringing it to PUI.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because the logo has overlapping typefaces doe's not make it copyrighted. If overlapping typefaces could be copyrighted then this logo would be copyrighted but has you can see it is public domain. Powergate92Talk 18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A little help

Hey Black Kite, just wondering if you could help me with a technical snaffu. I need the previous version of File:The Bronx - False Alarm.ogg deleted. Due to an oversight on my part, I accidentally uploaded the entire song rather than just the clip I had edited from it. I quickly realized the error and fixed it but obviously the file that's the entire song can't remain on WP. I wasn't sure where to go to ask for this, and you're the first admin I thought of. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thx - I'd nipped to the pub :) Black Kite 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet at Ahmed Deedat

Thanks for stomping on the Ahmed Deedat sockpuppet again. If he/she pops up again after Ahmed Deedat is unlocked, do I need to notify, or is that page under some sort of permanent sockpuppet watch? (I tried to notify at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations but that page itself was locked last night!) Peter Ballard (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

Thanks for the ludicrous assumption of bad faith. Your "unfounded suspicions" about my closing of that AfD are indeed wildly incorrect, but to be fair, they did make me laugh. As Cunard has pointed out to you, I had no intention of doing anything else with that AfD until he contacted me.

Perhaps I should have deleted it the first time - despite all the website's "it's notable" supporters, it still doesn't have any significant third-party coverage. You'd have thought all those supporters would have found some by now, if it's that notable, wouldn't you? Black Kite 08:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, you should have if you felt it was the outcome of the discussion. Clearly you didn't. But if by closing with with explicate permission to reopen immediately you were hoping for some outcome other than someone renominating it immediately I'd be curious what that motivation was. Hobit (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll fully admit I hadn't realize the close had been amended. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi, user:TharkunColl went on a significant spree [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. I haven't reverted but will wait to see what you deem appropriate under the circumstances. --HighKing (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I hear you. Although his most recent edit is only 2 days ago, so this may not be an isolated incident. But what do we do? Revert the lot? Cos if *I* did that, you know what would happen (and actually, some are perfectly OK edits). He's also not engaging on the task force and his comment on his Talk page indicates that he probably won't either. And given that some editors specifically watch for these changes, it's stretching my credulity that this went unnoticed. --HighKing (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering should I just revert all the edits? --HighKing (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem reverting ones that you consider to be incorrect, as long as you can back that up if necessary. Black Kite 00:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about your instructions which state if you're going to change BI to GB etc., you need to explain why you're making this change in the editsum as a minimum, and provide a source as to why the article should not be BI. It's the same for those wishing to change it back, as well.. Tharky hasn't provided a single source in any of those cases. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree, but clearly it's better if you can clearly say "this is wrong because..." rather than just reverting. Black Kite 01:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As expected, his tag-team buddy User:MidnightBlueMan has now reverted my edits link to MBM's contributions. Can you intervene please? --HighKing (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Got your note. So for clarity, what exactly is the situation now with the reverts performed by MBM? He's put the articles back to where they were, and all without references. Either we've got rules, or we don't. If I revert his edits on the basis of the ground rules that you've established, are you going to block me? --HighKing (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ping. --HighKing (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that everything be discussed on the Specific Examples page from now on. I see that process has started already. Black Kite 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)BK, I moved your reply back here to keep the conversation in one place. I protest at this very uneven-handedness and unfair treatment being dealt out. If I had done what Tharky did, I'd have been blocked in a flash. If I'd block-reverted what MBM did, I'd have been blocked in a flash. You set out explicit rules, which I've followed to the letter. I've even engaged (despite protests) at the Specific Examples page, and persevered amongst insults and stone-walling. A little support here and there wouldn't go amiss, and TBH I'm starting to seriously consider that my good faith attempts to work towards resolving guidelines is being abused by certain editors, and being taken for granted by others as a way of frustrating any progress and acting as an unofficial censorship channel. --HighKing (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Each of these needs to be looked into in more detail to ensure the correct term is used. There should be no mass revert of these changes, but i agree all future changes should be done via that page mentioned before which does produce results. Many of the changes made by TharkunColl were clearly correct,. most are not using the LEGAL term, they mean the British Isles. Highkings reverts must be undone in those cases. Take 25, "Battle of Jersey", it is VERY clear that is meant to be British Isles, not British Islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant whether they're "right" or not. If they overstep the "reverting a revert" rule from now, editors will be liable to blocking. Black Kite 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This rule about reverting a revert is problematic at the British Isles article which atleast has a warning tag when people edit it, to apply the rule wikipedia wide is going to be impossible or extreme. It may lead to alot of people socking, other editors who dont know about this new rule cant be punished can they and we wont be able to revert the revert.

So of the examples listed above, we are going to have to go one by one on the taskforce page, seeking its change? This will take a long time, can we atleast have current cases closed where its clear theres no support for a change so the page doesnt become a complete messs. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, a good change with a good source can be reverted without good reason. There has to be a way of avoiding this. Jack forbes (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't a hard and fast rule, clearly. If an editor makes a change that's solidly backed up by a reliable source, then reverting it without a good reason is clearly disruptive editing anyway - although I'd prefer it if such an event was flagged up to myself or another admin rather than a revert-war breaking out. Black Kite 22:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I have no intention of participating in a page where every edit must be looked at individually. That is not the intention of the page. The page is a part of the Task Force to establish guidelines. To date, there has been zero attempt at trying to use the specific examples to establish reasonable guidelines, although there have been considerable attempts to simply stonewall the process, and even deny that guidelines are necessary. If we're simply going to look at articles one at a time, then I suggest there's no need for this page, and we can simple discuss each item on the individual article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is frustrating, there are many articles saying British Islands when they should be saying British Isles, i thought that was an aim or atleast going to be an implication when i first saw that article. The taskforce page highking, is to screen every single example of when you want to remove the term British Isles, that page was never about setting up guidelines as far as im aware. It appears we are going to have to start adding examples of where British Islands must be changed to British Isles, and im sure stonewalling will take place to block changes which are accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a problem HK, but if discussion is going on at the article talkpage then it'd be useful to drop a note onto the SE page so that people like me that don't have all those articles watchlisted can keep track of what's going on. Black Kite 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A good rule which i would be happy to follow (considering i never go around adding British Isles anyway). All proposed changes should atleast be mentioned on that page, even if someone starts a debate about it on the talk page. We must be informed, otherwise its simply going to be reverted when someone comes across it and we have to look at each others edit histories to check noones going around making changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we need Arbitration to settle the BI usage on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom would not settle this matter, the Ireland naming dispute proves thats a waste of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The first words will be "content dispute". And even if it wasn't, what remedies would be sought? Whatever they were, they'd be a nightmare to administer. Black Kite 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way that we can have an automated update of pages where British Isles or British Islands are added / removes? if that was possible like with a bot that would be really useful and a good deterrent as people would be less likely to get away with random removals / additions.? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Doable, but very easy to circumvent if you knew what you were doing, I suspect. Black Kite 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Formosa

A quick heads-up. QuantockWarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a message on my page requesting undeletion of the Mark Formosa article. He has also started DRV here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Port Charles, New York (fictional city)

these images are relevent to show the places in questions

i would be happy to find images that would replace these and upload em to wikipedia

but if im going to the article i wanna see what the hospital looks like

articles to me look really bland without images

you understand me? i will be happy to find better images but please understand

BigPadresDude 22:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

what do you think of me as a editor? i have a minor barnstar just in case you need to know BigPadresDude 23:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• i hate sometimes that my edits are mostly minor cause i wanna write a good article but i do my own thing revert vandilism when i see it got any suggestions on how i could improve and what have i done wrong besides the carly corinthos incident and our current thing? BigPadresDude 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd love a refresher on FU images from vid games

Hi Black Kite. Six FU images at a FAC look like too many, especially as they're not well-embedded in the text, IMO.

Do you have time to take a quick look? The article; the FAC page. Thanks in advance! Tony (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

BRD at BI

I take your point. Problem is, BRD with no further reverting simply means no change on BI-related articles. Both sides can use it to stonewall progress, particularly when some editors will never be beaten in an argument. Use of British Islands is inappropriate in all cases apart from the narrow political use to which it applies, but we now have a series of articles erroneously using the term. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

See comment at User talk:TharkunColl. I'm on with it now. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Declan Arthurs

On this discussion here the result was merge. However the Declan Arthurs article was redirected and not merged. Could you possibly remove the redirect and merge the article as that was what the result was? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little House with an Orange Roof

Hi. You recently deleted Little House with an Orange Roof per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little House with an Orange Roof, but in the discussion User:KrebMarkt requested that the article be userfied in his userspace. Could you do this please? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth?

What on Mars are you referring to on my talk page? I couldn't give a fiddlers to what is said on the BI page, because the article is in a complete shambles. I just added one sentence, and that was it, otherwise dris, dris, dris!! Tfz 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)