User talk:Black Kite

“Libraries gave us power" Manic Street Preachers

Black Kite
Hi, I'm an administrator here, and have been since 2007. I'll try to answer any questions here as soon as I can, though I do have periods where I'm not available. For admins: if you think I've done something really f***ing stupid and I don't respond to a question about it, please feel free to reverse it ... we can work it out later on.

For Talk Page Archives, click here.

If you email me via Wikipedia, please leave me a note here (unless there's a good reason you do not want that fact to be public). I do check my Wikipedia email fairly regularly, but not that regularly.

Copyright

Hi, I uploaded a image to Commons. The copyright holder gave me permission to do so. I wish to know where to attach the copyright info. The holder corresponded with me via email, and gave me permission. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalKnights3000 (talk • contribs) 22:55, August 31, 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @RoyalKnights3000: You'll need to follow instructions here: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, this will get you headed in the right direction and most of your questions answered. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 06:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much.

ANI#Revert against consensus

Greetings, Black Kite!

jc37 has not edited since making this "report" and it has been four days. Should we continue to wait, or may I prevail upon you to correct a bad close? TIA. —ATS (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ATS I have left a note at their talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. —ATS (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Spy-cicle has used the bad close to revert to the false consensus. Action here would be appreciated. —ATS (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AYUSH

Thanks for redirecting, I almost did the same when I read it. I didn't because the name appeared greater in scope, i.e. it could have described a history of gov policies, but it was still centered around the same topic and in its current form was basically a POVFORK of Ministry of AYUSH... —Paleo Neonate – 19:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International 2020

I am reviewing a draft, Draft:Miss Grand International 2020, and I see that Miss Grand International 2020 is a locked redirect to Miss Grand and that you are the locking administrator. I see that the edit summaries say that this is a non-notable pageant for which we don't have individual pages. So, first, I will simply notify you that the draft has been submitted and is waiting for my review, and that I will decline it as non-notable. But, second, my question is whether there is a notability guideline or a previous AFD or a policy RFC that I can cite in declining. I am aware that there is a lot of promotional editing of non-notable beauty contests. I just would like to provide the best information possible on why I am declining the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Hi Robert. This is long-running. MGI was deleted at a previous AfD as a non-notable pageant (it's effectively a franchise). It was allowed that Miss Grand could be re-created as an article to cover the company that runs the various franchises. However, this has turned out to be a poor idea, as it has simply meant that pageant editors have assumed it is now notable again and have started creating articles for the various iterations - see also Draft:Miss Grand International 2021. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have Rejected the 2020 submission, because a Decline implies that there is some possibility that a resubmission might be accepted, which there isn't if the target is a locked redirect. There is a possibility that you will be asked why you locked the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhar Mann

Hi Black Kite, I was wondering if you could unsalt Dhar Mann? I recently rewrote Draft:Dhar Mann and was interested in moving it to article space. His YouTube channel has been covered much more since the past AfDs and your protection in July 2020, and I think that, in combination with coverage on his weed business, legal issues, and fraud charges, suggest notability. This NYT piece from last month highlights most of these aspects and links some other articles on him. Aranya (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground Driving Motor 3370 nominated for deletion

You prodded this article on 3 September. I have deprodded for the sole reason of including it in a batch AfD nomination of related articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground Driving Motor 3701, some of which have been previously deprodded. Your comments at the AfD are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Locomotive 02 001

I see you've nominated my page talking about British Rail Locomotive 02 001 for deletion, but I just got a second notification telling me it's been reviewed, does that mean it isn't nominated anymore, also could you please tell me how to improve the article to prevent future articles on similar topics (which I plan to make a shed load of) from also being nominated for deletion, Thanks

Individual locomotives or vehicles are rarely notable, and will need multiple reliable sources discussing those individual vehicles in depth to sustain an article (not just mentioning their existence, as you could find that for pretty much any locomotive). I am sure you can understand why that is, given that otherwise we could end up with an article on every locomotive that has ever existed. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George VI's titles & honours.

Howdy, Black Kite. Would you mind looking in at List of titles and honours of George VI & it's talkpage? Perhaps help out an IP, who seems a little confused about Wikipedia's rules. PS - I'm taking your advice, to assume IPs have good intentions. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay Are they being disruptive? At a quick look, it appears that they're removing unsourced material (I could be wrong here)? Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they are or not. @Peter Ormond: & @DeCausa: may have a better assessment of the situation. I do know, the IP's jumping back-and-forth between his IP & registered account, claiming techno problems. To be honest, it's kinda confusing what the IP is trying to accomplish. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the registered account? KosomPolskii? I only ask as that account appears to be Polish and the IP geolocates to India. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's the registered account. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged - don’t think there’s a major problem. They’re possibly slightly “over-enthusiastic” and unaware of policy but basically ok. Using both an Indian IP and a registered account (with a Polish handle) is slightly weird. Their explanation wasn’t particularly believable - i told them to either publicly link the two or stop using one. They removed that message so not entirely sure of their bona fides on that. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Isa Briones

Hi As per the comment at ANI, I propose to unclose and re-close this RfC as consensus for Option C. Please let me know if you have any major objections to this. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BK, my apologies, real life (tm) decided to interrupt more important things like editing Wikipedia : )

As for the discussion, I guess the AN/I is now archived, but the fast answer is that as I look now, even if we are to ignore the discussion, I believe I see 6:6 (if we just count heads) I think I may have mistakenly counted Herostratus twice last time, but whatever. I think it's within the norms of closer discretion (normally I'd pull quotes from policy etc etc, but I think you're well aware of what I'm referring to). I could go more into why I said it was a weak consensus, and also about the edit history of the page etc etc, but again, I think you're aware of what has been going on. And I'm not going to bother addressing the histrionics towards me at this point - merely par for the course. Though someone should probably reinforce the idea to ATS that reverting a close they don't like in the way they did is not appropriate. I realise that a typical response could have been to WP:RBI, but, I decided not to (which I suppose is supported by the second to last paragraph on that page), and to bring the this before the community instead.

Anyway, if you would like to accept responsibility for the close and such, please feel free to revert and implement your own close. If you would like clarity on any of the above, please feel free to ask. Happy editing. - jc37 21:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]