User talk:Black Kite/Archive 45

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Les Revenants (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Cummings

Mogwai discography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Digital download

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For your comments at AN and your close of that ridiculous MFD. I'd like to think some of this is sinking in and KV realizes that his approach to deletion discussions is badly out of step with the rest of the community, but I won't get my hopes up and will probably just avoid him in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• No problem. I'm pretty sure that I've told someone who was trolling me to "fuck off" before and effectively that's what he was doing. I wouldn't blame BWilkins either though, he thought he was doing the right thing and we all make mistakes. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've known B (on-wiki that is) for quite a while. I can't say I'm thrilled at finally having an entry in my block log, but I know he at least thought he was doing the right thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Article

Hello, I saw you were the closing admin on Araby (Warhammer) for deletion. Since then, the article has been redirected, but the history page is missing. Could you undelete the article so the history can be visible? Thank you. --AA (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately not, as the result of the AfD was delete. I don't know why the redirect has been restored, as it's not exactly a likely search term. If someone wishes to try and build a notable article using the history, I can restore it to userspace, but not mainspace. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think because there are over 50 links to it. Also, other Warhammer redirects have the history pages from when they were redirected. Anyway, if it's not possible, can you leave the last version before the redirect in my sandbox or something? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Done - User:Anime Addict AA/sandbox. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I moved it to User:Anime Addict AA/Araby (Warhammer) in case someone's looking for it and to preserve the history intact. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The alleged suspect

You keep on removing his name even though it's not a violation of BLP because it's properly cited in numerous 3rd party sources. (redacted)

Now please explain to me how mention of his name violates policy even though it is reported in numerous 3rd party sources. ScienceApe (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BLPCRIME. Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That only concerns stating that the person in question has committed the crime. That's not what the article stated. The article stated that Anonymous ID'd a person and gave his name, then states that another article confirms that the person in question admits to knowing Amanda Todd. The article never states nor presumes that the individual is guilty, and all mentions are cited by 3rd party sources. ScienceApe (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Insinuation is just as bad as statement (see WP:AVOIDVICTIM), there us definitely no need for Wikipedia to reinforce it, even if third-party sources have repeated that claim (WP:BLPGOSSIP). Black Kite (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, there's no insinuation of guilt, and it's not gossip. Like I said, the article never states nor presumes that the individual is guilty. ScienceApe (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So in that case, there's absolutely no reason to post the name of someone who's irrelevant to the investigation to one of world's top 10 websites, is there? Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's a fallacy and you know it. The information is relevant to the article, but there is no insinuation of guilt. ScienceApe (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree completely, however this is irrelevant; if you can gain a consensus of editors on the talkpage that the name should be included, then the community can discuss this further. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was going to suggest, but I don't think you should redact every instance of his name, enforcing what you arbitrarily think is right, until consensus has been achieved. ScienceApe (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We err on the side of caution with WP:BLP; we have to. There's absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about removing contentious material in a BLP (and it is contentious, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation and it wouldn't have appeared on ANI!). Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

unexplained "no consensus" result

Please review the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasser Haj Youssef closing, I don't see anything but a consensus to keep here.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're forgetting that the nomination counts as a !vote for delete. As such, 2-1 is not a consensus, especially when the Keep votes are making reference to sources in a different Wikipedia (not a reliable source, remember, and as per usual they didn't actually add the references to our article). As such, I would've normally re-listed this, but it already had been once. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please don't tell me what I know and what I don't know, or in this case what I have forgotten.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• AfD is not a vote count.  The weight given to the nomination IMO should have been zero weight unless you sustained the concern that the article was an "ad", in which case I think you needed to add a comment to the discussion and explain that the article was subject to deletion if the concern was not addressed.  The "comment" stated, "If additional sources are found, I think this article would be a keeper but I'll establish my vote when other users have spoken."  Two editors confirmed additional good sources, but in closing the discussion early you only allowed the commenter less than two hours to find the new opinion, study the evidence, and prepare a reply.  So IMO the weight of this comment should be as a "keep".  No one in the discussion claimed that the existence of other Wikipedia articles contributed to notability.  The fact that a reliable source is cited on another Wiki does not make a reliable source unreliable.  Why did you comment that "they didn't actually add the references to our article"?  AfD is not clean up.  You say, "I would've normally re-listed this", but this appears to conflict with the fact that you closed the discussion five days early.  Please explain why you closed the discussion five days early.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ah well, there's actually a good reason for that apparent early close - what you hadn't realised (and wouldn't unless you'd been reading WP:VPT to be fair) is that at the time, for me, that AfD appeared on the "overdue" list because of the problem with European updating (see Wikipedia:VPT#Users_reporting_site_time_issues_and_delay_in_visible_update_of_edits); it was still appearing on the Old AfD list and appeared not to have been re-listed. So, not a lot I could've done about that and I'm sure it happened to many other articles as well. Still, I'm not quite what the problem is - an NC close still keeps the article; the only difference is that it can be immediately re-listed if an editor believs in good faith that it still fails notability and if it does, then clearly there's no problem either. But I'll re-open if it you really think it's constructive - let me know. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note that substantive changes were made to the previous comment during this edit conflict. The previous edit comment says "another wasted 5 minutes".  There is not much to be said in reply.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, well, regardless of the "closing early" glitch, frankly I have got better things to do than argue the merits or non-merits of an NC vs Keep closure on an AfD that practically no-one cared about (and I've already said I'll re-open it if you wish). It would've been different if had been a Delete, but it wasn't. So if you don't want to re-open it, just go to DRV. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps you are not aware that I saw your post on ANI that encourages admins to drive off editors trolling(?) from their talk page by being uncivil.  The puzzle is why you replied when I allowed the discussion to drop.  As for how little-important the difference is between NC and Keep, this kind of thinking is what leads admins to making deletions instead of NC because, well, NC is actually a keep.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please feel free to strike that fictitious interpretation of my statement. I did not say that at all - I said that if someone is trolling me on my talkpage after I've warned them to desist (as the editor in that case even admitted he was doing afterwards) I quite reserve the right to tell them to fuck off. Now, do you want me to re-open that AfD, or are we done here? Black Kite (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have not reviewed the underlying problem, so I will assume that you have a point that my referring to this individual as an "editor" was not the best term.  Fictitious?  Well, I came here to talk about the AfD, and it doesn't look like you are interested in that discussion.  I was done here two edits ago, and I am still done here.  Bye, Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Question For You

You are an administrator right? There is a dispute on the song article "Pour It Up" about the genres. The users there are using "Club" as it's genre, however club doesn't have it's own page, it redirects to EDM. It is completely unreliable to have as a genre if it doesn't even have enough reliability for it's own page... don't you think? Is this allowed on Wikipedia or not? Nicholas (talk)

• Not really my scene, but I'd suggest that the source doesn't give the genre as "Club", it suggests it'd be a song that would be mostly played in clubs. FWIW I'd stick with "Dance Music". Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

re: Mogwai

The band page isn't intended to contain a detailed discography by any means. There's a separate page for what you're talking about. ChakaKong^talk 14:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely it should contain the most important or influential releases though? (which this one now doesn't). Black Kite (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I've seen the note on M57's page now. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

10ticks

Please review an article about 10ticks. Is there any reason it has been taken down and if so what can I do to make sure it is OK to Publish. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi - can you give me a link to the article? Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

yeah the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Black_Kite/10ticks thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, that's the old version and I've got a version I'm working on at the moment. However I'm going to pick up some material for it tomorrow, so hopefully I'll have a working article soon. Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great thanks for that if you need any information let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Carmenelectra

Hi! At first I thought it was a content dispute, but it later became clear to me that I was dealing with vandalism; I apologize if I was wrong or if I too was disruptive by trying to prevent disruptive behaviour. Is it not true that adding a systemic bias template and a template with an arbitrary text to the article and reverting explained edits without explanation, while refusing to discuss the issue on the talk page, classifies as vandalism? Surtsicna (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, certainly it doesn't apply per WP:NOTVAND where the exemption from 3RR is for obvious vandalism only. I don't fully understand what the other editor is getting at with that template but it does not appear they are editing in bad faith... Black Kite (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I see. Do you still advise me to revert my last edit? Trust me, I would not remove a tag that makes sense, but systemic bias is simply ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Wait a bit - I'm going to talk to the other user as well. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Personally, I would remove the tag and the picture,since thre doesn't appear to be any consensus to include either. I'm not going to take any admin action here but obviously if someone else reports the issue to WP:AN3 or elsewhere another admin may take a different view. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the advice. The picture problem is being dealt with on the talk page according to WP:Dispute. The consensus to include it was deduced from the DYK nomination, where a reviewer suggested its inclusion (and added it) and other reviewers did not object. Neither did the closing admins who decided that the image should be featured on the main page. Another admin is in favour of retaining the image because it "illustrates the rationale behind the naming, and ... thereby it sheds light on the thought processes of certain members of the scientific community". The fact is that the genus and species name is ridiculous, and removing the image would not make it less so. I am no longer adamantly against the removal because removing it would no longer hurt the article's DYK status, but I am still in principle opposed to the removal of content because someone finds it offensive. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi, I recently spoke to you about the page 10ticks you said you would have a look but I don't think anything has been done yet just wondering what the plan is? Thanks 80.46.99.136 (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi there - no problems, I've just been really busy recently. Hope to have the page up soon, it's all but complete but obviously I don't want to put it up and have someone nominate it for deletion again! Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
Message added 17:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD

This article was discussed and there was "no consensus" for its deletion so it survived. Is it correct that its TP say "the result was keep" instead of "no consensus"? On the other hand, when you closed the discussion, on 21 January, you said "I am closing it as NC and strongly suggest to the editors involved that the article is improved so that it meets our policies or guidelines, or the inevitable result will be that it is nominated again." Do you see any improvement in the article? Let me make you a summary of the facts: It is about a woman who supposedly won a beauty contest. However, the result, or better the contest altogether, was annulled, because she was "favoured". Whatever -some gifts that we do not know exactly what they are- given her were taken back, together with the so-called title. The contest was considered not serious and declared null and void. I must refer that she has taken the third place in another (1929) beauty contest, but we do not have a detailed article on that latter contest and only a bio of the winner, not even of the number two. Other than that, we know nothing about this woman: When and where was she born? When did she die? (Or is she still alive?) What else did she do in life other than participating in two contests? Married? Children? Etc. The contest she "won", was there any other contestants? Why is there no reference to them? Who finished second? Who finished third? --E4024 (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• I see no improvement at all - thus, feel free to renominate it for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Appealing a ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• As discussed here, I feel that your blocking me—blocking even my talk page—and then shutting down my RfC was really abusive. The RfC discussion was surely perfectly civil and rational until SMcCandlish came along and started hurling insults and repeatedly rewriting my RfC proposal (rewriting my comments)—bully and bait tactics—rather than commenting on the contents of the RfC in the Comments section. The reason that you gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me from protesting) was that (you said) it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. When I asked you to justify this with links showing that this was a fact, you repeatedly refused. Surely you are aware of Wikipedia:ADMINACCT#Accountability?
• The ban "indefinitely prohibits me from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics." But I believe that I have only once "added an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics" (in the lede of the Walesa article) and probably never "converted any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page". This was surely all a sham to stop any discussion about doing proper research in a broad range of reliable sources, and to stop any discussion about certain people completely stripping the majority English usage out of an article—so that it doesn't appear even once, not even in the lede—because it's "not encyclopedic" or it's "unethical" to use English in English Wikipedia.
• I understand that I have to give you a chance to retract the above and apologize before appealing this ban. Please justify with facts your "duplicative" claim above, and explain why you blocked me and gave this reason for prematurely shutting down the RfC—were you simply repeating what somebody else told you, without bothering to research it, or did somebody ask you to fabricate a reason and shut me up? LittleBen (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ENGVAR

I'm not disputing anything, but I'm just curious as to what the ENGVAR issue was that you fixed with this. Ryan Vesey 18:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN for 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup Final

--Spencer^T♦C 23:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh??

What happened here? The proposed merge on Jerry Harvey (inventor) was dropped without a completion of the discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!

• It got removed when the histories of the two different versions of Jerry Harvey were merged, as it was no longer the latest revision. Feel free to put the template back if the discussion is still ongoing. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD merge

Hi, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chippie Polar Cup and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Caribbean Stars, the consensus was to merge the two articles into the existing Association football in Curaçao - but this appears to have not been done. Please can you progress? Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry, I completely forgot :) Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Haha, no worries, many thanks! GiantSnowman 18:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Very ugly in my opinion, completely lacks heart, reads like a regurgitation, where huge chunks of information is missing and is also not the focus of Association football in Curaçao, since more can be said about both events, as well as about the focus of Association football in Curaçao which should be about the national team first and foremost, and especially the Sekshon Pagá, top flight football on the island. Congratulation on your recent butchering of two perfectly fine articles;Subzzee (talk) 5:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Let's just cram together everything that has anything to do with football in Curaçao into this one article shall we? What poor judgement, seriously very disappointed in this decision and the procedure by which it was reached. Subzzee (talk) 5:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
      • This is what happens when editors ignore merge tags; the job eventually falls to someone who's not as knowledgeable about the subject. The alternative, of course, is having no information about the Polar tournament or the team, because it was decided clearly in the AfDs that they weren't independently notable which would have left the article about football in Curacao as the one-line stub which it was before. Black Kite (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Birmingham City University‎

Just to say thanks for the quick and appropriate action on this issue, which saved me having to make separate requests. Exemplary admin work and much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the entire University IP range for 3 months as well, nothing but vandalism and silliness from it anyway, so no loss. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Black Kite. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

Chascharl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has requested unblock on this talk page, promising to only use that name. I see you blocked this user for two weeks but don't see any other users aside from the IP address so I think we could afford to give this user another chance. –BuickCenturyDriver 07:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, up to you, but I'd be more concerned that apart from the multiple IP socks, the majority of his contributions under his main name were non-constructive as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that you just edited

St. James Infirmary Blues. Do you mind taking a look and perhaps offering an opinion about a discussion at the bottom of that article's talk page? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheerleaders

I need the page "Cheerleaders(Captain Underpants)" for use on my wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.213.156 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Do you know the exact name of the article? I can find no deleted article under that name (with or without the space after "Cheerleaders"). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• I think it's without a space. 67.82.213.156 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Nope, not there. Did I delete it? I can look through my log file if that's the case. Black Kite (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, you did. 67.82.213.156 (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It was mis-spelled as "Captian Underpants". for what it's worth, it's here now. I'll delete it again shortly. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori

Hi, could you block 123.224.185.7 (talk · contribs · count)? They admit to being 124.102.103.158,[1] and are therefore JoshuSasori. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I accidentally "rollbacked" Cooch's edit above with a cursor "hover" above the rollback button. It drives me crazy when that happens. Mea maxima culpa. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

re: Cla68

I recall an instance a while back where I gave an editor talk page access and it didn't go well for me. It was an Arbcom block however, so perhaps that's different than the OTRS/BASC situation, idk. Fortunately for me, the Arbs were understanding, and the person I gave access to (talk page only - left the block in place), did not post and emailed me that he was afraid to get me in trouble. Different situation perhaps, but even if I could, me personally, I'd be afraid of pissing someone off. Maybe talk to someguy and Beebs about lifting the talk page block? — Ched :  ?  18:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• That was my thought. I'm just having my dinner ;-) but I will do that shortly. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy .. about ready for a late lunch here myself. :) — Ched :  ?  18:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Beeblebrox has squashed that one. However, he was not the admin that removed TPA, so let's home Someguy1221 is more receptive. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments at the ArbCom discussion

I'd like to apologize in advance for saying I question your ability to be an administrator. I won't be striking it, but I feel that it deserves some more explanation, so here goes:

1. Functionaries recieve nonpublic data
2. Based on the nonpublic data, block is made with instructions "don't unblock without contacting functionaries first"

There is a clear reason that it's wrong for a regular administrator to unblock when a functionary makes a "functionary action" block. Namely the fact that the regular administrator does not have access to the functionary list nor the ArbCom list to see the private data or other talk that went on before the block. Reverting the functionaries block without even taking this information into account is just plain stupid, as there was clearly a reason for saying "contact functionaries first"; the nonpublic data involved. Once again, sorry for the rash comment. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's fine. I obviously disagree with you, though. I've been an admin here for six years, and I've seen a not insignificant number of blocks which were imposed for outing (or similar) undone when the editor promised not to repeat the problematic content. It's not an unusual situation. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I totally understand, heck in my 1.5 years here I've seen maybe one total. I just wanted to apologize for the kind of rash comment I made about your fitness to be a mop-wielder :) gwickwire^talk_editing 00:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas ^t 07:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

re: Your RFAR statement.

Indeed. In fact the entire situation showed up in my Google news feed today. I'm hesitant to mention the site, but if a person enjoys being an examiner, then it's likely they could find it. A classic case of Streisand effect if ever I saw one. — Ched :  ?  00:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely ridiculous that Wikipedians do not feel comfortable to link to Google news. 71.198.213.240 (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way the article was removed from Google news feed. Now it is better simple Google the web, just like this. 71.198.213.240 (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

don't be hasty

Re [2]. While I haven't agree with everything you've ever done or said it's clear to me that your losing your bit over some rash action would not benefit Wikipedia and, in fact, would make things worse. There's been a whole lot of stupid around here this week so please don't contribute to it; it's late in my time zone and I'm tired so apologies for being less on point and succinct -- it's just not worth it; if the editor continues on their present course the will get handled eventually, no need for you to be collateral damage. NE Ent 03:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree, you'd achieve nothing except being desysoped, and russavia will be unblocked in a few minutes. 71.198.213.240 (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

hi. i'm glad to see others making the suggestion i was going to make. wikipedia needs level heads, and i would hate to see yours on a plate. give that user some time, and i'm sure there will be plenty of rope. 174.141.213.42 (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Good admins. are a valuable commodity - and I consider you exactly that. While I also find the timing of this situation more than a bit troubling, I suspect it won't take much rope before a fully valid block could and will be placed. The initial return is already more than a bit troubling. Take a deep breath - "we can get there from here". — Ched :  ?  05:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you don't care about your admin bit, but I do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Worm That Turned believes that if Kevin hadn't unblocked Cla68, then ArbCom might have already reached their own conclusion about Cla68's unblock appeal. So - in addition to what others have said above - please do not create more work for ArbCom so they can reach a decision that is already being delayed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sticking to this one (most if not sll of those "outstanding" schools will have a wakeup call very shortly. On the other hand, teaching your child to be a racist twat is never going to end well. Black Kite (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm here to add my voice to those above. While obviously I'd look at any situation on its merits, indefinitely blocking someone because you disagree with their editorial actions on Commons seems a strange choice for an experienced administrator. First, it will not prevent the continuation of the editorial actions elsewhere with which you disagree. Second, the correct place to challenge those editorial actions is on Commons, rather than importing the dispute here. Third, it will further complicate an already fraught and complicated situation on this project. Out-of-process direct action will do nothing to resolve it,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Not because I don't believe it's the right thing to do (imo it is) but because it would clearly be pointless. Roger, the problem is not only on Commons. Why do you think Russavia was blocked for a long time here? Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your forbearance, BK. As to your question, it's a fact of life that he's been unblocked and what's past is past. However, to get things clear, his ArbCom unblock does not inoculate him against future blocks that are within policy and within process for fresh actionable misconduct on this project. So, it's live and let live, I guess.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• The problem is the absence of a global ban. Right now he's busy replacing good images with his own [3]. Ryan Vesey 22:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Here's another example. It's one thing to add images you created or found to Wikipedia articles, it's an entirely different thing to systematically replace other images. Ryan Vesey 22:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's leave for the next opportunity, I'll be pinging an indef in there, and this thread has alerted many others to the problem through which they'll ether block indef (correct stance) or stick in a topic/interation ban. Black Kite (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sad to see you in this state, but not at all surprised. The stupid seems to be multiplying these days. I really recommend a little time away; it's really the only cure for excess suckage. You'll feel better when you come back. I always do. Also, agree with others above that even if you don't care about your bit, I do and would really hate to see it gone. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Steven Crowder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven Crowder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Crowder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

You had deleted the page after I nominated it for deletion the first time. I am nominating it again (which will be the 3rd nomination), and figured it would be appropriate to mention this on your talk page. Rogerthat94 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenna Rose for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Rose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

I saw that you were also involved in the 3rd discussion, and figured I'd inform you that I have nominated it for a 4th one, based on your comment in that discussion. I apologize if notifying you about these two discussions is inappropriate. Rogerthat94 (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Arts on the Line

You where reverted. Werieth (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• In a similar vein Wikidea (talk · contribs) needs a major lesson in NFC. He is attempting to force 77 non-free logos into a single article as navigational aids, he is also doing this across multiple other articles See Talk:FTSE_100_Index#Image_dispute Werieth (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion notification

Pretty sure this would be something you're interested in. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

LittleBenW yet again

WP:ANI#LittleBenW, diacritics topic ban, and personal attacks (yet again). <sigh> I tried to let this one go (I did let it go for days) but he just won't stop even after both Sandstein and Joy [shallot] have warned him, too, and that's just at AE – he's doing it at ANI too, in yet another case he's not a party to. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

10ticks Again

Black Kite you still withhold the page for 10ticks without editing it for months. Though you have received numerous requests from multiple people you continue to harbor the page without editing it nor allowing to exist as it should. Please can you action this with a quick resolve, by editing the page and then making it public. This has gone on for 12 months now.

• I'll be quite clear - if I can't find enough reliable sources to ensure the article's notability before putting it back into mainspace then it'll just be deleted again. I've found some - but probably not enough. It really could do with some offline sources - newspaper or magazine articles that aren't from the Bolton News! Any ideas? Black Kite (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've given it a good copyedit, removed the fluff (which was probably one of the issues last time), fixed the broken links, sectioned it and added an infobox. So might as well put it back in mainspace to see what happens. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There's links in there from Australia, South Africa, Malaysia, book in america, so not really sure why they are not enough links.I will try to look for offline quotes, thanks for putting it back in the mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Because they're mostly either local news, passing mentions or reprints of press releases! Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)