User talk:Black Kite/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks

Your support is appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done

Appreciate it. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge vs delete

Please actually merge articles when they are tagged as such and when stating that is what you're doing, unlike what you did with the V episode list. Thanks. Xeworlebi (t•c) 22:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I merged in viewing figures etc. and sources where they existed in the article (for example here). Where there was nothing but plot, there was nothing to merge as a plot summary already existed in the target article (also WP:NOT#PLOT). Black Kite (t) (c) 06:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The viewer figures were already on the page, that a not what was supposed to be merged. The summaries on the episode list need to be expanded, The plot is exactly what should have been merged. Just deleting articles and saying you merged them because you moved information that was already on the page to a place were they should not be, summaries are for plot, not ratings, trivia, etc., isn't merging, that's just deleting the page and removing the links. Xeworlebi (t•c) 08:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Fine, expand the plot summaries in the main article then (subject to WP:PLOT). It doesn't make any difference to the fact that the individual articles weren't up to the standard of stand-alone articles - just compare them with the standard of the Pilot article. Wikipedia isn't a repository of detailed plot summaries of every TV episode ever, that's why the policy exists, and why individual wikias exist for popular series. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I know the articles were not up to par, that was why they were up for deletion, but the AfD discussion ended in merge not delete. What you have done is not merging but deleting which was not what was agreed upon. Xeworlebi (t•c) 17:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You can only merge what is mergeable per policy. Vast plot summaries aren't. For some of the articles there was mergeable material; if there's nothing worth merging, then it's just a redirect. There's nothing strange going on here. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) The strange thing going on is that you don't seem to grasp the concept of merging, the summaries on the episode list are vastly insufficient, they are teasers and they should be, per policy, summaries. The AfD discussions ruled that the articles contained information worthy of merging, otherwise it would have ended in delete, not merge. The parts you merged, weren't the parts that should have been merged (and were removed) because 1) the summaries are for summaries and not ratings and 2) they were already on the page. The AfD discussions ended with the ruling merging, which you have ignored and just redirected. That is not merging, nor is it "per policy". Xeworlebi (t•c) 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Just because an AFD on a group of articles ends in merge doesn't mean that they all contain valid information. Just merge in what you think is necessary, which is what I did. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You merged nothing, which is the point. Merging these articles means trimming the plot to the 100–200 word count (350 max if complicated) per MOS and putting them as the summary on the episode list. Xeworlebi (t•c) 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
For the third time - in that case feel free to expand the plot summaries in the main article. And I'll assume your reversion of my comment on your talkpage as "vandalism" was just a mistake, shall I? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself then for the fifth time since we're counting, if you say you are merging articles then actually do it. If you take it upon yourself to merge articles and then say there was nothing to merge it makes no sense, you should have re-requested deletion then. On your last question, I asked you three times to keep the discussion on the same page, because having a discussion in two places makes no sense. For the future, when you say you're doing one thing but actually doing something else, some people might see that as an attempt to hide content deletion or even hide vandalism. Merging content doesn't mean copy pasting it from one page to another, you have to make it fit, condense it if necessary. If you don't feel up to it to actually merge articles then don't, which is what I chose, because I'm horrible at condensing it to decent plot. Xeworlebi (t•c) 22:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Teens Run Modesto

I too placed the article on my userpage for storage. I tried to contact Shadowjams (see theseDIFFS but due to computer problems fell behind. --Morenooso (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done!

The Admin's Barnstar
For exercising your discretion to diplomatic and tremendously constructive effect in a difficult situation, while in no way giving in to the heat. Thank-you and good call! ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 21:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

British Rail Class 313

While I can understand your view, I think you may have been a little hasty in protecting this. There hadn't been any edits for two days, the edit war had been largely replaced by an ongoing talk page discussion (Talk:British Rail Class 313#New image dispute), and the WP:LAME entry (which I added) refers to an earlier edit war and not to this one. I wonder if it might be best to unprotect it and see what happens? Alzarian16 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting it. It's good to see at least one admin who's prepared to admit when he/she makes a mistake. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI thing you might be able to help with

Hi. :) There's a listing on ANI about reversions of British Isles related articles. It's obviously the tip of an ice berg, and I'm not familiar with the background. I gather from your notes on the talk page of the editor in discussion that you are. Any chance you could take a look at the listing and see what, if any, action is appropriate? It looks like others may be dodging it for lack of familiarity as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For some reason the link isn't taking me to the right subsection. It's titled "User:MidnightBlueMan reverting articles without putting forward reasons, and reverting even after discussion". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee List of Colleges and Schools

Hi,

Regarding the above AfD, I would like to better understand your rational behind the decision to delete vs re-list. My reading of the discussion, is that other than the Nom, only one person expressed a view either way (all be it to delete) and his view was based on the artical being WP:OR - this is some what puzzling view, because if that is the case all the source articles should also be deleted. I therefore don't see that a concession was reached. Your thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Codf1977 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Well apart from the nom delete and Gavin Collins' comment, the main point is that by DGG that the article is superfluous (effectively another delete) as the articles for the individual colleges already exist and therefore don't need a sub article listing them and effectively duplicating information. That was certainly my take when I read the afD. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I still feel that given the fact that Gavin Collins had not responded to the point about OR and that DGG contribution was a comment and not a Delete, it should have been re-listed as I don't think a clear consensus could be said to exist. Codf1977 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
      • While looking at another AfD on my watch list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in music videos I cam across a similar comment from Gavin Collins, this had me look at his contributions and his talk page where others have expressed concernes about his definition of OR, given that I ask would you consider re-opening and re-listing the debate ? Codf1977 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I've been looking at it again regardless. Whilst my personal take on it would be similar to DGG's, you're correct that a re-list would be a sensible compromise, so I've done that. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Thank you. 18:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
            • sorry to be a pain, but can you also restore the Talk page as it has the notices about the merge incase questions come up re the OR issue. Codf1977 (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgians in Heaven

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgians in Heaven? A non-admin closed it as no consensus. Is it possible to re-list it to see if there is consensus for merge. There were 3 in favour of outright deletion, 4 in favour of merging with American Folklore Theatre (the company that produced this one-act musical, which has only played locally in Wisconsin) and 2 very weakly argued "keeps" from members of the Article Rescue Squadron. Their additions were not enough to establish sufficient notability for an independent article in my view. Or, would it be better if I simply now tag it for proposed merger? You can answer here, I'll keep your page on watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Re-closed as Merge. I suppose I'd better look through all that non-admin's other closures now! Black Kite (t) (c) 15:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I've gone ahead with the merge and redirect, and have also merged another "non-article" on one of their other productions. Will gradually build up the main article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Historian N OH

You just blocked Wiki Historian N OH for 31 hours for violating 3RR. I am sitting on 3 edits in 24 myself but would like to reinstitute the changes I have made (backed up by others) that Wiki Historian N OH reverting on the Marysville, Ohio page. How should I proceed without going over 3RR myself? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do just that, thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mentalmoses/ITEG

Dear Black Kite, I think User:Mentalmoses/ITEG would now be ready for mainspace. I'd appreciate very much, if you'd take another critical look at it and - in case it seems appropriate to you - republish it. Again, many thanks for your help! Mentalmoses (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox in mainspace Christ myth theory/Sandbox

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Christ myth theory/Sandbox. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Christ myth theory. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, I suggest you move it off mainspace. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, didn't know that was the norm. Found article showing on New Article listing and looks rather strange. I'm not sure there is value in having duplicate articles around to be honest, but there are a few. Lincoln Memorial/Sandbox, Mao: The Unknown Story/Sandbox Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would you take an interest in the British Isles stuff again? I know it broke your heart last time and contributed in part at least to your retirement. We've made some great progress since, and we're close to developing guidelines for the MOS, so the light can be seen at the end of the tunnel. --HighKing (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Request re: Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Hi,

Considering the overall toxic nature of that page and in the spirit of ensuring mediation can go ahead without the long baggage of bickering amongst editors, would you mind rephrasing the last sentence of this edit to defuse the situation? Thanks a bunch. MLauba (Talk) 13:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, done that. It isn't easy replying to some of these postings though! Black Kite (t) (c) 14:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I fully appreciate how difficult it is, but the options at this stage are either give mediation a chance, or build a case at AN for an SPA ban. Cheers, MLauba (Talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory: G. A. Wells' section

Hi Black Kite, it looks like we've been able to hash out an agreement on G. A. Wells' section of the article. Could you please replace Wells' current section with the following (without the blockquotes, of course):

Graham Stanton wrote in 2002 that the most thoroughgoing and sophisticated of the proponents' arguments were set out by G. A. Wells, emeritus professor of German at Birkbeck College, London,[1] and author of Did Jesus Exist? (1975), The Jesus Legend (1996), The Jesus Myth (1999), Can We Trust the New Testament? (2004), and Cutting Jesus Down to Size (2009).

Wells writes that there are three broad approaches to the historicity of Jesus—(1) that Jesus is almost or entirely fictional; (2) that he did exist but that reports about him are so saturated by myth that very little can be said of him with any confidence; and (3) that he not only existed, but that a core of historical facts can be disclosed about him.[2]

When Wells first addressed the issue in the 1970s, he saw the Jesus of the gospels as no more than a myth, but in the mid-1990s moved toward the second position, seeing the gospels as traceable to a Galilean preacher of the early first century whose teachings were preserved in the hypothetical Q document, the inferred source common to Matthew and Luke. This is the position he adopts from 1996 onwards.[3]

In The Jesus Myth, he argues that two Jesus narratives fused into one: Paul's mythical Jesus and a minimally historical Jesus.[4] Because he accepts some minimal historicity, he argues that he should not now be dubbed a "mythicist tout court", but nevertheless maintains that the historical evidence refers to "a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles."[5]

Thanks. Eugene (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of getting this into the article before the lock expires? Eugene (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Joel Weiner

You deleted Joel Weiner's page on the grounds of lack of notability and I wish to appeal. The deletion review section says that I should first contact the admin who deleted so here goes:

I've collected some links of independent sources on Joel Weiner.

There have also been many printed newspapers featuring articles on him, here is one I found that you can view online (page 2).

The above list included six national newspapers.

Rejection of WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E: At the time of the deletion, there were two events, one in October last year and one in April this month. Since the deletion, he has appeared in relation to other events such as http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/30824/tv-star-joel-weiner-joins-big-bnei-akiva-event and most notably was asked by The Jewish Chronicle to put a question to each of his local MPs which was in print, but I have found to be online at http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/30843/leaders-debate-jewish-boy-puts-more-questions-leaders

WP:BASIC is met by multiple independent sources, as noted above. WP:ENT clause 2 incidentally is also met; he has a fan base on facebook exceeding 15,000 people: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Jewish-Kid-From-The-First-Election-Debate/110963155604635

For these reasons, I believe there should be an article. Thank you. 930913/A930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joel Weiner. 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. 930913/A930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 23:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

The images are fine. I suggest you put it out for comment before reverting me. Let's discuss this. --evrik (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I have started the discussion. --evrik (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Your now driving an esit war. Please stop these reversions until we have discussed this further. This will also serve as your 3RR warning if you don't stop. --evrik (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • My reversions are not subject to 3RR. Read the policy, please. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You are driving an edit war. You are also refusing to discuss this on the talk page as I have requested. Please take a breath and stop this useless edit war. --evrik (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that you want me to report you? --evrik (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • If you want, but it would be a waste of your time. Apart from the fact that 3 reverts are not a violation of 3RR, edits that remove material that violates WP:NFCC is immune from 3RR anyway. An admin may take a dim view of the fact that you are introducing material that fails WP:NFCC using rollback, as well. Please discuss it at WT:NFC - you will find many users who are familiar with the policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ruin Cireela on List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes

I note that you have warned Ruin Cireela for using a non-free image. On 25 April that user reverted List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes four times. Shortly after I reported her/him, however, the user stopped editing. On 29 April the same user made substantially the same edits to List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes again ([1], [2], [3]). I have let Tim Song, the admin who closed the 3RR thread, know about this, but thought I'd let you know, too. Cnilep (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted again: [4]. Cnilep (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Shokuwarrior

Hi :) You may remember that you gave the serial copyright-violator Shokuwarrior (talk · contribs) a final warning about a month ago; and now he's back to uploading improper images, non-free content clearly stating, "Replaceable—yes," and supplying no FUR (see this and this for example). As I commented in the initial ANI thread, he has been warned countless times over two years for uploading copyright violations, including your "final" warning, so I think he has now reached the time for a block of at least a month? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 22:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi—are you planning to do anything about this? If not, no worries, but I'll need to chase the issue on ANI. Cheers, ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - will have a look now. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done that (quite clearly, I think) already... :/ If he just doesn't get it, then competence is required – it's been this long, we shouldn't just let him keep uploading images that others have to scramble to delete... ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 05:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 07:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki Historian N OH

After several days of snarky comments on his talk page, Wiki Historian N OH came back today to the Marysville, Ohio page and continued his WP:OWNing of the page. Templates were removed, sections deleted, just all around BS. I reverted and warned the user with a Warn4IM template as his edits were clearly disruptive. Since you blocked him back on April 25 for 3RR, I thought I would bring this to your attention and ask what should be done. This is clearly an editor who isn't responding to requests to comment on his talk page and feels that he OWNs the Marysville, Ohio page and has no problem with his disruptive edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Turian

The policy regarding page protections state that before editing a fully-protected page, consensus for the edit must be gained at its talk page. You did no such thing and therefore abused the tools allowed to you as an admin by editing the page without consensus (there was an admin who had already declared that there was nothing wrong with the way Turian worded his page). I suggest you revert the edit and seek consensus on the talk page. Feedback ☎ 13:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't waste my time with silly matters such as that although I think most of the community will agree. An admin had already declared it wasn't NPA and reverted the edit that removed it. By protecting the page and doing an edit is definitely admin abuse, but I see it wasn't the intention so I wouldn't call it abuse if not just a mistake. But reversing the other admin's action is definitely wheel warring. I just assume the other admin has been mature (or just doesn't care) and won't respond with his own revert, but that nullify the error that occurred. Feedback ☎ 02:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for your prompt action on 152.26.10.162. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Linda King

Can I ask you to reconsider this one. Just before you closed it, I expanded the article considerably with added refs.[5] It now details her life (I'm still adding material) and it is now too much about her to merge appropriately to Charles Bukowski and would have to be immediately split off. The deletes were all for the original state of the article, which was just two sentences and one broken ref.[6] I am about to put it forward for DYK, so would like a clear run for that. Ty 01:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Yep, I reconsidered it ... you might prefer this result :) Black Kite (t) (c) 01:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Ty :) Ty 01:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Carr Street (St. Louis)

Thanks for informing me about the AfD closure. I've started merging the articles now. Just one query: since the article on Carr Street itself is far longer and better sourced than the others, would it be OK to keep this one in its current form? It could make the list article a little long and overcrowded if all of its content was copied across. The consensus at the AfD to merge this one seemed to be less strong with a few users suggesting that this could be kept and the others merged. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've removed the merge template and finished merging everything else. However...
I just came across Salisbury Street (St. Louis). It seems this wasn't included in the AfD. Much of the information appears to be an unsourced rewrite of James Salisbury's biographical article. Should I merge this too, or would it be better to take it to AfD and get a consensus either way first? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Hood.star1984

Hello, I'm curious about the block you gave to User:Hood.star1984. Is this not a clear case of vandalism? He/she was repeatedly changing the gender and name of the subject's girlfriend, and the gender & name of the subject of his song. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem like a content dispute/edit war.--BelovedFreak 23:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation! I hadn't noticed you'd changed it; thought maybe I was missing something! --BelovedFreak 23:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

British National Party

Please be reminded the data in the BBC website only listed candidates participated in the 2010 local election only, not the total number of councillors of the party, i.e. a few current councillors are not standing in this year's election because they have not finish their term yet. Please log on to http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm by Keith Edkins updated just after the election. Please check before abusing your right to block the users' accounts. by user clementhkhk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementhkhk (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. This is just some guy's website and he does issue a disclaimer; "However I cannot guarantee the precise accuracy of the composition of any particular council". Accordingly, I doubt we could treat this as a reliable source. He doesn't cite his sources, and is essential an aggregator site. I think we need a tad better than this. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
But you can verify by logging into the council's website through the blue font. I am sure that it will be sufficient enough to ensure the data are correct. comment added by Clementhkhk —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
We should not use sources that require our readers to perform their own enquiries. Whereas I have no doubt that this guy is in good faith, there's no particular reason why his website should be trusted. I'd prefer to use a more official source, and there must be such out there. Rodhullandemu 00:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
You can refer to other posts for other political parties, like Labour and Lib Dems, they also cited from the same resources but no one was questioning. Let me stress again that there are 19 councillors being re-elected in the election as in the BBC website, not the total number of councillors that the party has. The BBC data are showing the number of councillors each party wins in councillors that require re-election because of the end of the term. So you claim that the British National Party has 19 councillors in the local government is wrong.You have mis-interpret the data.(talk •00:49, 10 May 2010
I hesitate to bring a debate on sourcing on to another editor's Talk page, and I wouldn't blame him if he deleted it; however, and particularly in the current climate of uncertainty, there are bound to be reliable sources out there that do state the current number of local government seats held by each political party in the UK. My point is that the source you cite is less than authoritative. Even the BBC should have something somewhere; if not, the major broadsheet newspapers are worth Googling, because you'd assume that they do check their figures. Rodhullandemu 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomson (politician)

Some clarification as to your actual position (if you have one) would be appreciated. There are folks thinking you have advanced an argument-for-deletion rather than bringing the nom as a strictly procedural matter. –xenotalk 13:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I should probably point out this bold, but innocuous, edit I made to your nom statement. –xenotalk 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop

I am thinking deletion review. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you overstep your duties as an administrator and fully protect my page when you had absolutely no justification for doing so? To quote someone is not a personal attack. Quoting them as the reason for leaving is not a personal attack either. If they do not wish for me to place it there, then perhaps they should not say it. So, why did you? –Turian (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  • To stop a number of people, not just you, from causing themselves a problem through edit-warring and personal attacks. Please feel free to complain at ANI or elsewhere if you have a major problem with the protection. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
If I got to ANI, I will ask for your resignation. So I doubt you want that. I want you to basically say you are wrong, because I want it restored. And stop saying it is a personal attack, because it definitely isn't. "Thanks" –Turian (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You can want what you like, but I'm not going to say I was wrong if I don't believe I was - that would be hypocritical. Feel free to ask for my resignation at ANI if you wish. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

AN3 Archived

An AN3 report that I filed was automatically archived by a bot, as was another report by someone else, without an admin looking or commenting on it. The user has added an illness tag to their page a little while ago, so I suppose an admin should make a ruling on it now rather than waiting. Thank you for taking the time. SilverserenC 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian flags

Please reverse your closure of your own nomination after only 12 hours. The actual copyright status of these images is far from clear, and there should be opportunity for further discussion. This was highly improper. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am asking you to change your closure to the usual plain "Withdrawn as Keep", or I will take the matter to AN/I. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
You're threatening to run to AN/I because you want it to say "withdrawn as keep" rather than just "keep" – seriously? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 16:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Rather than "The result was keep. and remove the non-free images." Yes, seriously. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
As no one !voted delete during the time the AfD was open, he is entirely within his right to, as nominator, withdraw his nom and speedy keep. The investigation of individual copyright status of images can be handled on a case-by-case basis, but it's perfectly clear that the consensus was not to delete the entire list. I wish every nominator would withdraw a nom like this when it's clear there's not support for a wholesale deletion. Remember, removing or reinserting individual entries in a list is an editing decision, best discussed on the talk page. If you DO think you want to take this anywhere, WP:DRV is the right first venue, but I don't think you'll find the outcome you're looking for by doing that. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
What he actually did was a conventional close, with a "result" claiming a decision for a particular course of action. Though he now claims it was a withdrawal, there is nothing about that at the AFD, nor about it being a speedy keep. I think AN/I is the proper venue, if he refuses to clarify at the AFD. If things are as you say, he should have no objection to doing this. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, whatever. If you think the wording is that important, I've changed it. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Community episodes, et al

Hey. About a week ago, you and a few other editors removed copyvio text from List of Community episodes. Just now I was looking through the TV FL list and seeing what some of the articles there looked like, and a fair amount of them seem to have the same issues. For example, List of Dad's Army episodes was raised to FL, but all the descriptions there seem to have been taken from http://www.davidcroft.co.uk/Dads-Army/Episodes/. The ones there are sourced to a book, but it's still verbatim. Also, The O.C. (season 4) seems to have been taken from http://www.theocshow.com/episodes.htm. I'm not trying to point fingers or anything, and I'm not even sure why I'm writing this. Just seems to me that this issue is a little more widespread than just on the Community article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Restore/userspace

Hello, I'm requesting that you restore Tha Carter IV (right now it's a redirect) and move it with its original edit history and all to my userspace as User:Andrewlp1991/Tha Carter IV. That article was deleted because it was an upcoming album, and I frequently contributed to that article. If further information about Tha Carter IV comes out I don't wanna have to search Google all over again for my sources. Thank you! Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Julie Stoffer DrV

Hi, Could you look at the userspace draft for Julie Stoffer [7]? I believe it's improved a lot since you commented at the DrV. Not sure it's enough to change your mind, but it's now got two sources that are primarily about the topic and two others that are at least fairly reasonable. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic debt referendum: mediation

 Recently, a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010 was filed with the Mediation Committee. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. (See also: Wikipedia:Mediation.) Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010 and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Thank you, AGK 17:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR Board

If you or another admin could take a look at the very slight backlog on 3RR, it would be appreciated. I am one of the people "awaiting a verdict" (was reported against) and want to know if I will be editing today or not before I get in the middle of a big project. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved by another user. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

1 min block

I have to say that the one minute block on Hans Adler looks like a poor decision on your part. I'm sure you're aware of the current attitude towards BLP enforcement, which is that we should be extremely conservative about potential BLP violations. Simply protecting the page (as I have now done) would have been a more appropriate response in this case. Issuing a one-minute block claiming "disruption" when someone is invoking BLP is approximately the opposite of best practices. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Well that's exactly the point, surely? Hans was edit-warring, would've been blocked for 24h under any other situation, but I took the BLP issue to be mitigating, thus reducing his block. This really isn't rocket science, is it? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Seems to be rocket science for you. Is the situation not very clear? A living person's article was being repeatedly tagged identifying him as a terrorist was it not? Hans was removing that tag in accordance with BLP policy, yet you blocked him. It doesn't take a genius to see that you're in the wrong, but the worst of it is, you just can't see it. Your intransigence may well result in the escalation of what would by now have blown over had you felt able to behave in a responsible manner, admit to your mistake, and do what you could to make amends for it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • We have worked together on NFCC issues sometimes, and I know you do good admin work and this was just an isolated incident. I have made mistakes of my own in the past. I think that making amends and moving on would be the most direct resolution of this one. I'd be happy to discuss these things sometime once it's all in the past. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Black Kite, the response "I frankly couldn't give a shit",[8] is not the proper way to respond here. Please review the discussion at ANI. Consensus is pretty clear that you made a mistake. Which isn't the end of the world. The proper response from you at this point would be to acknowledge the opinions of other uninvolved admins, apologize for your error, and do what you can to set things right. Remember, as an administrator, one of the things you should strive to do is to de-escalate disputes. If you apologize, work with Hans to get his block log squared away, and acknowledge that you've taken everyone's comments onboard, in order to improve your admin actions in the future, this will all blow over very quickly. If, however, you stand firm that you're right and everyone else is wrong, this will probably escalate. Please consider your next actions carefully. --Elonka 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, I share the concern as stated by the above editors who are pointing out that your block of Hans_Adler was incorrect for several reasons. 1) We want users to remove content that reasonable could be a BLP violation without concern that they will be blocked. So a block of any length is not compatible with the spirit of the policy. 2) Blocks are done for 3RR to stop edit warring in order to make the articles stable. A 1 minute block is entirely unnecessary because it does nothing to stop an edit war. 3) It appears to me that you blocked in order to label the editor as a disruptive editor. This is entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia blocking policy. In light of the concerns raised here on your talk page and AN, I hope that you will make a clear statement acknowledging your error and also take measures to correct the block log in order to make it clear in Hans Adler's block log that the block was out of order. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It is disappointing that you are getting such a hard time about this. It looks to me that many at ANI are not familiar with the full scope of the incident and are completely disregarding the disruptive behavior of Hans Alder. Making a WP:POINT at 3rr at the very least warranted some sort of warning. The possible BLP concern was certainly not clear enough to justify edit warring. My opinion probably should be discounted some since I was involved in the content dispute and made 1 revert myself. So basically: this sucks and not everyone thinks you were in error.Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Some things you conveniently left out:
  • The two admins who edit warred against me at least didn't force me to make more than three reverts. I don't know if it was decency or just enough wiki sense to understand that forcing another editor to invoke GRAPEVINE is unhealthy. It was you who forced me to invoke GRAPEVINE by joining the tag team at that point. Saying "[I] made 1 revert myself" seems a bit of an understatement under the circumstances.
  • At 3:24 AM of my local time you made a 3RR report against me that left out the most important bit of information. And you blame me for anticipating this and wanting to provide that bit and go to bed without waiting for the report? How was that a POINT violation and knowingly making an incomplete 3RR report against a user who may not be able to reply is not?
  • Have you considered the possibility that not everybody at ANI subscribes to the insane "Let's call all the filthy ecology and animal militants terrorists so we can do something about them without civil rights and public opinion getting in the way" and "Let's call everything illegal terrorism" manipulations? Not everybody is a radical anti-ecologist or a credulous Fox News watcher, you know. Hans Adler 09:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Remix

Can you please explain to me why you have removed the UK album cover from this page? It's valid and referenced; and plenty of other music album articles have more than one album cover e.g The Fame Monster, On and On (Agnes song)... ⓈⓓⓌ④•talk•contribs• 16:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

This is really my last edit before turning off the computer: I mentioned you on ANI. And I am still waiting for an apology for the misleading block summary associated to an account that carries my real name. Hans Adler 02:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  • You'll be waiting for a while then. You reported yourself to AN3 for edit-warring, after all. Anyone reading the block log will be see that a 1-minute block is unusual and look to see why it was given; it'll be quite clear to them when they look into your contribs around that time. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I reported myself because it was absolutely predictable under the circumstances that this would happen: A report for edit warring by Cptnono that did not mention the matter of BLP at all and therefore could mislead a distracted admin (who might overlook the edit summaries) to make an incorrect block. The possibility that an admin might be actively working towards a climate in which editors are afraid of enforcing BLP while trying to draw a wider community to a problem did not even occur to me because it is so absurd.
    • It is not true at all that "anyone" reading this block log would react in this way. I often deal with the kind of editor who are likely to say such things as "Hans Adler has been blocked for disruptive editing before, so...". More importantly, I am editing under my real name, and I am an academic on a temporary position. When I a apply for a fixed position there are plenty of people who are likely to google for my name and notice I am editing Wikipedia. It is not at all unlikely that they will know enough about Wikipedia to find my block log, but not enough to interpret it correctly or find the context. They might not want to have a colleague who edits Wikipedia disruptively. I am seriously considering now to give up this account and have it renamed because of your inconsiderate action. Hans Adler 09:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh for goodness sake. I would say that the block actually reflects well on you because it points out that you self-reported your 3RR violation and the time of 1 minute reflects the fact that you believed you were defending BLP concerns. If you want, I can block you again for 1 second with a block summary which makes that clear. It's up to you. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Whatever you do, I must ask you to make sure that we agree about the text of your block summary before you actually do it. Given that the block was out of process per WP:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log, I would expect something like "The previous block was not justified." Hans Adler 13:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Well you're not getting that, because the block was justified; I merely reduced it in length by 23hrs and 59 minutes to reflect the circumstances. I am happy to annotate the block summary with "Note that previous block, for self-reported edit warring, was reduced in length due to mitigating circumstances" or something like that. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
            • I see it was a good thing I communicated so clearly. You are not getting that you have no right to block someone merely for correctly enforcing BLP. You have no right to decide unilaterally that WP:GRAPEVINE somehow doesn't count and can be ignored. If you do that you are blocking out of proces. You are also not getting that "I could have blocked you for longer but I reduced this to a ridiculously short time, so you have no reason to complain" is not an exceptional argument but the standard argument for such block log blocks and therefore not an argument for ignoring the explicit prohibition of such blocks. Do we need to ask Arbcom which of us is right in this matter? Or does the feedback that you are currently getting at ANI have a chance of making you understand you were wrong and blocked me out of process? Hans Adler 14:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I came here to express some disappointment at the one-minute block; policy is pretty clear that such "symbolic" blocks aren't the way it's supposed to work. But the discussion here makes it completely clear that Hans Adler only self-reported as a pre-emptive defense against being reported. Frankly, I don't see "mitigating circumstances" and can't understand why a 24-hour cool off would be such a travesty. Happily, we do completely agree on the absurdity of admins negotiating block log messages with users. Block logs shouldn't turn into a mechanism of admins applying badges to particular accounts. Rvcx (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If Black Kite had blocked me for for 24 hours for enforcing BLP, they might well have lost their admin bit as a result. If I hadn't self-reported but waited for Cptnono's report which did not mention BLP, Black Kite would have had plausible deniability: "Oh, sorry, I didn't read the edit summaries carefully". Shortening a block to a mere logging action to avoid having to take responsibility for it is precisely the kind of abuse that the blocking policy wants to prevent with the prohibition of punitive log blocks. Hans Adler 14:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) Hiya, coming in as an uninvolved opinion on this. I'm not familiar with the entire background of the dispute, and have just kind of skimmed the related threads for a few minutes. Based on this, I have to admit that I am very concerned about the block, and think that it's reasonable for Hans to request a clarification note. As it is, to someone uninvolved (such as myself), I see a block on an established user, who had no history of previous blocks. There's also no clear rationale for the block. There's no link to any related thread in the block log, and further, there's no notice from the blocking admin on the blocked user's talkpage. Those are problems in and of themselves. Even an experienced admin familiar with the situation, coming in a year from now, might have considerable trouble untangling things to figure out exactly what happened. So my recommendation is that Hans Adler and Black Kite work together to choose mutually agreeable wording for a new block summary, and that Black Kite then post it in the block log, preferably with a link to a location that has more information if anyone wants some. --Elonka 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Elonka, do you really want me whining to admins to at least append nice messages highlighting the fact that although I occasionally get dragged into silly edit wars, it has always been the case that my version has been the one supported by consensus (and ultimately upheld)? Wikilawyering is already childish enough; block-log politicking would just makes things that much sillier. I thought all the admin policies were meant to try to keep admin action out of the spotlight, not endorse it as a gauge of editor value. Rvcx (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess that depends, when you seek employment does your resume carry the name "Rvcx" ? –xenotalk 15:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
But what is the purpose of editing with a RL name? Someone's not forcing anyone to do so, are they? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea why Hans chose to edit with his real name, but he does. –xenotalk 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Making admins responsible for upholding the reputations of editors is a huge expansion of their role. The job is to keep Wikipedia functioning (semi)efficiently; turning this into a reputation economy would be a major change. I was very distraught over my first block and didn't think it was fair; I got over it and decided not to whinge about it by accepting that the admins were just trying to keep things chugging along, and sometimes by-the-book enforcement and "everybody involved cool off for a while" is easier than trying to figure out who's in the wrong and who's in the right. If I viewed blocks as indictments of my character and not practical tools to manage community interaction I'd have complained until I got a "you meant well" message (and the other editor involved got a "poor understanding of policy" message), or I would have given up the account permanently. Rvcx (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have chosen to edit under my real name because, in contrast to quite a few other editors, I am a responsible adult and quite unlikely to do anything here that I would mind anyone associating with myself. And also because full disclosure of this kind makes it a lot easier for others to assume good faith. It also makes me more vulnerable to certain types of abuse by others, but I am big enough to defend myself against that. Which I am doing here. Hans Adler 16:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
And what motivated Black Kite to abuse you in this way? Have you been in prior disputes? Or is this just more of a disagreement on the particular method of dealing with an issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Christ knows. Standard 3RR block, reduced for circumstances. If anyone really wants to chase after my admin bit for it, knock yourselves out. I frankly couldn't give a shit. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Is that the purpose of GRAPEVINE? That 3RR blocks for removing contentious BLP-relevant material are reduced? Why, then, is it phrased so misleadingly? "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person [...] that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." I suggest that you first get a consensus to change BLP and then apply your favourite version. Doing it the other way round is not fair. Hans Adler 21:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not aware of a prior dispute. I guess it's a very fundamental disagreement about the status of BLP. Apparently Black Kite interprets GRAPEVINE as a polite request to admins not to be too hard with editors who break 3RR while enforcing BLP, rather than an absolute command to enforce BLP and a guarantee of indemnity when doing so in a reasonable way. (Interestingly, Black Kite also has a bizarre interpretation of the prohibition of punitive logging blocks.)
Also, there was clearly a bandwagon effect with certain editors agreeing with each other all the time and then drawing others in. This often happens on Wikipedia and is corrected if and when things get escalated sufficiently that a wider community including some independent thinkers starts looking at a case. Predictably, this has happened now that the matter has generated enough drama. Hans Adler 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the words at WP:3RR were considered in light of where it was reported: Exceptions: "poorly sourced contentious material that violates Biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (Also, compare that to the wording of "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page.") You were edit-warring against 2 other admins and another editor; if that isn't self-evident enough to be considered controversial per the [emphasis added] clause of exemptions, I'm not sure what is. I also was unclear about whether this was a BLP thing, even if you made it clear that you thought so. The community made it clear that it would have been better to protect the page rather than impose any blocks (and I agree), and I also see how infuriating any block can be for any editor, let alone yourself in your circumstances - I'd be ticked off if I was in your shoes. But even now, I cannot be totally unappreciative of what Black Kite was thinking (and doing). It was neither abuse nor intentional. I think it was just a disagreement on how to handle an issue (hence questionable/bad block overturned by consensus as opposed to one that is totally unjustified - one that is unjustified would be a block on a user for vandalism when no vandalism occurred). Also, enclosing a specific request for the page to be protected might have also helped. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point. I came from the other (BLP) angle, and as that is a policy that is basically about how other policies are modified in specific cases it never occurred to me to look if it is contradicted by one of the policies it modifies. Not realising that BLP and 3RR are out of synch was obviously another mistake that led into the situation on my side. The other two were not even thinking of protection as an option and formally reporting myself without saying clearly enough that this was meant as a defensive action. After realising this now, I apologise for some of my language, especially the word "abuse". Let's continue the discussion at WT:3RR. Hans Adler 10:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Stanton & 2002 143
  2. ^ Cutting Jesus Down to Size, pp. 327–328.
  3. ^ Cutting Jesus Down to Size, pp. 14–15.
  4. ^ Wells 1999a
  5. ^ Wells 2000
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_30&oldid=1150992525"