Jump to content

User talk:Black Kite/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Heal The World Foundation Edits continued

Thanks very much for your conscientious, careful monitoring of this important article, BK--and particularly for restoring Cameron Scott's correct version. This will help protect many sincere, unsuspecting, and grieving fans who go to Wikipedia looking for facts about Michael Jackson's original Heal The World Foundation. In the short time that I have been a (very) new contributor to Wikipedia, I have come to truly value the effort and experience it takes to do the job you and other senior editors do.

I have enjoyed reading your archived talk pages. Being the guardian of a major repository of world knowledge is not easy work, but I have observed that you do it well. Again, thank you.

All41and14all (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Carmine Guida

Hi - I see you deleted Carmine Guida at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmine Guida. Could you explain why you decided to do this? There were plenty of print sources detailing Guida in detail, and the consensus on the page leaned (as I counted it) slightly towards Keep. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being so understanding of the effort I (and User:Altenmann, who put in a simple KEEP vote but actually commented in more detail earlier) put in to the article... I'm sure it'll improve with time - it's a pretty new article! Luminifer (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


File:Chchnewslogo.svg

This logo is in public domain as it only contains typefaces. Please undo your edit and readd the image back to the CHCH-TV article. Thanks.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the CHCH News logo, not the ON TV logo. That logo was recreated by me on Illustrator, so I'm not sure what you mean by screenshot.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, was referring to different image. Replied on your talk. Black Kite 23:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by screenshot, the Global Quebec on the CKMI-TV were logos that were exported from PDF files from Canwest Global, owner of that station. If you want screenshot, the MI-5 logo looks to be a screenshot. I'm not going to be reverting your edits, as I'm assuming good faith here, but it would help if you explained what you meant by screenshots.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#216.246.164.118

On that issue - you blocked the user, but he's still edit warring over the shared IP header template on his talk page - per WP:BLANKING, for anonymous editors, that shouldn't be removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

TV logos

Logos that are in typeface are public domain see WP:Public domain#Fonts for info about that. So why did you remove File:Wtaf84.jpg and File:Wtaf85.jpg when you could have re-tag them with Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark? Powergate92Talk 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes they screenshots but they are screenshots of typeface therefor not copyrightable as "typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States" again see WP:Public domain#Fonts. Powergate92Talk 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you?

Protect this IP's talk page? User talk:216.246.164.118 User keeps deleting certain templates and attacking other editors at the same time. Of course you already knew.Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 00:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I hate to lean on you so much, but can you check and comment on the image licensing at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augusta, Lady Gregory/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cat's Eye Nebula/archive1? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! You made it look easy :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Black Kite, would this at around 0:10 qualify for public domain? As far as I understand, that logo features overlapping coloured circles and the text "11 CHCH TV". Thanks.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

KKCK‎ Protection

You might want to update your protection of the KKCK‎ page on WP:RPP where I had previously requested protection. Thanks for the quick work...NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: WP:AIV

I wasn't really sure what to do in that situation. I thought it was clear vandalism, but I also knew I was going beyond 3RR too, so I was in uncharted waters as they were continuing to revert. The user was also vandalizing a couple other pages, but then got focused on KKCK, which is why alot of the edits were to that page. I will try to be more careful in reverting "non-clear" vandalism in the future. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Go Zappa

I just improved the Gō Zappa from redirect to article with what I could find about this person's work. I wanted to redirect Go Zappa there (or perhaps move this to Go Zappa if that is more common, it is spelled without the line over the 'o' in the bio page I found for her) since there are some pages linking to Go Zappa and it is a common spelling for it. I was also wanting to redirect Koihime to Koihime Musō because I think someone could be looking for that without knowing how to spell the whole name. The whole first page just has references to Musou when I try searching Koihime. The only thing I could find which is possibly different is listed under Pink Pineapple but there isn't an article about it or anything. I would like to find more information about that eroge but the only reference for that article is a .jp and I'm unable to find information about this Koihime eroge or even able to figure out if it is something different from Muso. I am wondering if Japanese wikipedia might have more information about it? I'm sure if they figure this eroge is worth creating an article for they can replace the redirect to Musou with one and change it to a disambiguation statement. Oh yeah and I also want to redirect Chocosis to Chocotto Sister because someone wrote that it is also known by that abbreviation and it's the only thing that comes up when I do search for Chocosis. Also I figure Chokosis would make sense because what it's also known as places a k in place of the hard c so I figure that could also happen in the abbreviation. Chokotto too because Chocotto already does. Tyciol (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, even though it's not listed it just seemed reasonable based on extrapolating the other too since k is dropped in for hard c here and commonly in spelling these. Do you think the Zappa article is good? I don't want to redirect to it or move it until I figure it's worthwhile at which point also list on Zappa since it's a list of people with that name she should be included on as a living person. I don't have experience with bios so I hope bots will automatically upgrade the stub tag. Tyciol (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Done, and I know this is somewhere along the lines of the Elton problem, but would you disapprove of directing Unit Zappa to Moon Zappa? Full name is Moon Unit Zappa and Moon Unit disambiguates there and somewhere else. The issue was sort of unresolved so I am wondering the proper place to bring it up if I wish to enact change in wikipolicy about this, or in the very least, to clearly clarify in the policy why it shouldn't be done. Basically, the best way to benefit longterm from previous mistakes it to help clarify what to do and not to do in the policy so nobody else does it, since other people did do some things (like create redirect upgrade to disambig as learned of other uses) which I followed. Also, I think guidelines on how to deal with people making such mistakes would also be good (like how retroactively lists of tagged redirects were made, which I linked to from you and R on my page so I can go and review and stuff. Tyciol (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah and I don't mind recreating the redirects, unless there's some means of undeleting them to restore the previous content. Anyway before I hate Fate/ redirecting to Fate stay. I think that was one of those ones which got deleted without as much attention as some of the others. Since it could refer to any of the Fate games in the series (Fate stay is the first and most popular, someone even had the section titled after it) I would like to redirect Fate/ to Type-Moon#Fate/ which describes all of them. At the moment the series doesn't have an individual article so I figure that section's the best. Tyciol (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also for the List of Ef episodes I would like the redirect the titles for each season Tale of Memories and Tale of Melodies respectively to each season, unless there's something else these could refer to? Tyciol (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of Tyciol's less good suggestions

I've been working my way through some here [1]. Would you mind deleting the ones marked DELETE. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I should add that Tyciol disagrees with most of my recommendations to delete [2] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry for landing the Malke issue on your plate yesterday. I had no idea, from her previous behaviour, that she would get quite that abusive. I'd like to check something for future reference. After she started posting abusive messages, I contacted you as you were the person who blocked her last time, and would be more familiar with the case. Is this the correct thing to do? What should I do if a previously blocked user kicks off again like that?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLIX history-only undeletion

The page is now a redirect, but I believe that there is some information in the history of this article that could be used in the future. (See User:Twigboy/Sandbox/Super Bowl (future games).)

Thanks, ~ PaulT+/C 16:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

NPD article

I was able to defend my position on the NPD article with facts and arguments that nobody was able to refute(I even provided a link) and yet some persist with vandalizing the NPD article by continually undoing the factually accurate version and the only justification they can provide are superficial comments such as "enough Spitzer" so please ensure that they stop.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol

We should have agreed that anything to do with redirects he runs past you - he's already it seems annoying other editors and trying to get deleted redirects reinstated. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, have you actually approved all the redirects he's made so far? Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in - although I hated to see such an enthusiastic chap blocked, I have grave doubts that he's understood anything. He's still insisting that Elton Hercules is a good idea, he's still refactoring other people's comments and insisting he's doing no wrong. I'm not sure what to do - I'm happy to keep discussing with him because there are other views than my minimalist one, but he really needs to tone down the obsession for making obscure redirects. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I can agree to that Doug, as far as I understood it only applied to the creation of new redirects. There's a lot of issues and I didn't want to pester him more than necessary for things which other people deleted.
  • Elen: I understand that recreating the 'Elton' (even though I tagged it for discussion so it was not subterfugeous) was the wrong way of going about it. I haven't created any new redirects along those lines, I understand people have some objections to it. I still think it's a good idea, but I can discuss that idea on the appropriate WP talk pages on policy change suggestions (or clarification, seeing as how it doesn't say not to, it should if people will get blocked for doing it) rather than making the changes on my own. That's the peaceful way of solving it right? In regards to comments, I guess moving might technically be considered refactoring, I didn't think of it like that since the meaning wasn't changed (it says not to change meaning on WP:RTP) but now that I know you don't like them moved I will remember to avoid doing that in the future. I'm sorry for not making that clear while I was explaining previously.
  • BK I'm sorry about Chokotto, I did run it past you above along with the others, you said not to do 'Chokosis' but not not to do Chokotto, but I notice now you also didn't explicitly approve of like with Koihime and Chocosis. I guess I was thinking "the stuff he didn't refuse is okay" like maybe you approved but forgot to mention it. But I was adding things as I thought of them so it's possible that it was overlooked, I shouldn't make assumptions like that, so I'll remember to only do the ones you mention as approved, not do everything but those you disapprove. I guess I wanted to save the trouble of repeating it, maybe if I just edit the page and bold whatever was missed would save on adding a new comment?
  • For Run-up, I did that because you had redirected the name of this game company (RunUp) to that page. Runup already redirected there, the use with a capital 'U' seems like it would be used exclusively for the company so if someone typed that in I think they'd want to know about the game which the company name originally directed to. Also fact-tagged the entry about tsunami.
  • For Xez, while I would like her to recreate it, but did not actually tell her to do that. Rather, I was asking if she would clarify the reasons, since as you know, people are mass-tagging these things with the same rule quote without clarifying or exploring the term. Rather than discussing with the people who deleted them, should I just ask you about the ones which I would like recreated as Doug has said? It just seems like a lot of work, and I don't want to step on the toes of the person who deleted it either in case they had a good reason for doing it. Tyciol (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly... Runup was directed there in 08. You directed RunUp with the cap U. I agree leaving out the hyphen is a plausible typo (like I would never point Runup to 9Dragons. I find it less plausible that someone would randomly decide to capitalize the 'u' though. It's at least equally likely that they may type it in to learn about the company, so I had pointed to an example of their work which mentions them. As usual I've probably left out other games they've produced, there seem to be a variety of other MMOs on their site, unfortunately I can't read the kanji so I'm not sure what they are. Performing a search for RunUp similarly isn't much help since I don't think the wiki search engine distinguishes capital letters. I guess I'll have to leave it up to people importing content from Chinese wikipedia to create an article like that. Tyciol (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep I already acknowledged and supported Runup going to Run-up :) I did not understand that RunUp also needed to because of this different capitalization policy. Is there somewhere I can read more about this? I think I have encountered instances where different capitalizations go different places (like LOVE goes to Love (disambiguation) instead of Love) so if I were to go and change these I'd probably receive less arguments for doing so if I knew which policy to quote as supporting the change. Tyciol (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello Black Kite, I wanted to apologize for my uncivil comments on the edit summary. No excuses. Very sorry. You were just doing your job.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your BI Block Threat Posts

I'm rather concerned by this warning you've posted on three editors' pages [3]. There are periodic attempts by certain editors to expunge the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia. They click on the "What links here" link and merrily go off removing the term. Given that the editors concerned are ones who know very well that this will be highly contentious (because they edit at British Isles themselves), why are you threatening any editor that undoes these undiscussed changes with blocks? There is general consensus that we need a general consensus before mass actions are undertaken relating to the term at Wikipedia, and it's still being discussed how that can be achieved. Finally, if you're not already familiar with it, check out footage of the Stanford prison experiment, and reflect that your role here as an admin is primarily as a janitor. Language like "let me be clear here" suggests to me you think you have some kind of authority over others: you don't. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Justice League

I saw that you tagged the article, could you weigh in on the discussion that's on the talk page. The consensus seems to be that we do warrant images for the illustration of the costumes (given the critical commentary on the costumes), but we're trying to find the best way of doing that for the section, as the consensus is also that the current way is probably too much.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

English Defence League

Thanks for taking a look. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi. It's been a long while since this subject raised it's head.... Last year, I got into a number of edit wars with User:TharkunColl over adding/removing the term "British Isles" from articles. I've very recently changed a number of articles again, resulting in the removal of the term "British Isles". And hey presto, User:MidnightBlueMan has reverted, and posted a message on my Talk page to the effect that he doesn't care if the edits are right or wrong, but that all edits involving British Isles must be discussed first. In a way, it's bringing back to a head all of the stuff from last time. I don't want to be seen as a disruptive editor, but I accept that many editors believe that I am - regardless of whether my edits are correct or not. So. I'd rather get off on the right foot on this issue, and since you were involved last time but not as the main nominator, I wonder do you have the time/stomach to take a look. --HighKing (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Black Kite - Hear this. You have addressed just one aspect of the HighKing problem, namely the edit wars. You have not addressed his political targetting of articles containing British Isles; an incredibly disruptive activity. What are you going to do about that? Firstly, might I suggest you inform yourself of the history of these activities. You will then see the problems that were caused last year by HighKing's activities and the resulting agreement that he should desist. In my view it is entirely reasonable that he should discuss these matters FIRST, and then if neessary, and with agreement, make the alterations. Obviously such requirements don't extend to Wikipedia in general, but for controversial issues such as this it is an eminently sensisble approach. As it stands you've given him carte blanche to carry on with his deletions in the knowledge that if anyone challenges him they will be blocked. This is most unsatisfactory. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Be clear about this Black Kite, stopping obvious disruption is one thing, but if you start getting trigger happy and handing out blocks willy-nilly, I'll be sure to start an RfC on you. The uneasy truce that has been in place for a while now is that people should not go around Wikipedia engaging in blanket removals of "BI". Doing that is disruptive. And it is not "stalking" to check what others are up to on this front, as another admin recognised in the past when it was taken to ANI (I can find it if you want). I concur with MBM that you should familiarise yourself with the history before wading in. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) e.g. to quote one from 2008, [4] "Seemingly obsessive removal of the words "British Isles" wherever they appear is not the hallmark of a productive editor, and also disruptive." And on the subject of stalking and BI, [5] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If you think I am not familiar with the history here, you are wrong. I am very familiar with the BI wars, with HighKing, with Wikipeire and his cavalcade of socks, with the repeated appearance of Ireland-based mobile phone IPs, and with Irish disputes in particular (WP:ARBTRB). I have even reverted HighKing's removal of BI from articles in the past. What you and MBM seem to fail to acknowledge here is that both sides are engaging in disruptive editing here. Removing "British Isles" from a single article is not in itself disruption; doing it en masse probably is. But equally changing them all back is not necessarily vandalism prevention. each article needs to be examined on its own merits, not treated as a single part of a mass-revert war. Black Kite 12:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that if one article was innocently changed, that's one thing. But that's not what we have. We have involved editors going round en masse and removing the term. That is disruption, plain and simple. (Note that we don't have editors going round and en masse deliberately adding the term). Undoing that disruptive activity is not disruption itself. If you think otherwise, and if you start blocking people for it, I will definitely be raising this on the admin page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Editors who go round making mass undiscussed changes which are politically motivated are are clearly editing disruptively. There's no disagreement from me there. The problem arises when some of those edits are probably correct and that editor explains why. This is why I pointed out such an example earlier (which, I would point out, both MBM and TharkunColl reverted). If an editor removes "British Isles" with an edit summary that points out why the use of BI is wrong in that context, then it shouldn't be reverted without explaining why BI is correct (or sourcing it). Mass reversion which inevitably leads to an edit-war isn't helping anyone at all. Black Kite 13:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'd agree with that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. That's what happens in many cases anyway. We just need to get away from politically motivated edits. So yes, sources are needed if BI is removed or inserted and there is suspicion of political motives. We should also address the tactic of putting a cite tag on instances of British Isles where it isn't really necessary. The major problem with all of this is that it wastes an enormous amount of time, and I hate to say it, but we are surely moving towards the position where HighKing should be required not to add or delete British Isles under any circumstances. MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Thank you for a very sensible stepping-in and warning to MBM and Tharky. One of the biggest breaches of policy that I endure is the constant labelling of my edits as "political". Reverting edits based on "political POV" is a form of ad-hominen attack, is not based on content (convenient) and I'm always amazed at how admins let attacks like those continue. My edits are made in good faith, and I am always happy to discuss them, using references (which is the way WP is supposed to operate). I'm sure some of my edits may not be perfect, but many of them are 100% correct (as history has shown). I believe the term "British Isles" is overused, and incorrectly used in many articles, all of which is outlined in the Working Group on usage which is happily ignored by Tharky and MBM. I hope that from here on in, a closer eye will be placed on reverts of my edits. Reverts should provide a reason in the edit summary at the very least, based on content. --HighKing (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:HighKing

User:HighKing has been continuing to edit war after your warning, and in his edit summaries is disingenuously claiming that he's atually following your instructions. ðarkuncoll 16:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

the change Highking has made to Gunpower is totally unacceptable. A non involved editor to the British Isles issues (as far as i can tell) has clearly stated why other terms can not be used. Im restoring to before HighKings clear POV edit. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to add User:BritishWatcher to the warnings above, and note that we've now started to see an increase in the amount of ad-hominen attacks. Note the edit summary here, by BritishWatcher, which labels the edit a POV change. Note that the article only mentions the UK. This type of revert-wars must be stamped on, very hard. It is designed to avoid talking about the content, or engaging in any meaningful way. Even though there's now 3 British editors tag-teaming on the edits, I'll resist, for now, the temptation to revert. --HighKing (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Ad hominem attacks! You're joking aren't you! Referring to editors as "stalkers" and "British" (used pejoratively) and accusastions of tag teaming - what's that but an ad hominem attack? As I mentioned on your talk page, you are 100% responsible for the disruption. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, and not condoning any other edit, HK has got a point on Gunpowder, which clearly (the way the article stands) should be UK or GB. Black Kite 22:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
As an example of tag-teaming and ad hominen attacks, the Talk page at Gunpowder is an excellent example. This is precisely the format of all "discussions", where any attempt at discussion is drowned out by accusations. Just from that Talk page alone, we have statements such as "That's complete rubbish, HK, and you know it.", ""PC" gone made", and "the desire of HK to eliminate British Isles is preposterous". The disruptive behaviour stems not from my edit, but from the coordinated reaction by certain British editors to prevent discussion, tag all edits as political, and drown any point or attempt to make a point in name-calling. Please see my Talk page for a proposal to try to minimize this particular disease, and to help form some proper collaborative basis for future editing. Your comments would be very welcome. --HighKing (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It definitely shouldn't be UK, but see comments at User talk:BritishWatcher. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sally Traffic

I did not see the previous article about Sally Boazman but would you be so kind as to take a written from scratch article in my sandbox? User:Miami33139/Sally Traffic, move it to Sally Boazman, fix the redirect at Sally Traffic? I believe I have written a sound article that passes verifiability and notability, with 16 sources from ten independent sources. Thank you for your assistance. Miami33139 (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Can I use the code at the talk of your talk page to jazz mine up? Miami33139 (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the redirect needs to be protected at least. Has there been a problem with repeated recreations? --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to inform you that the matter has been taken to DRV here. (Not by me; but it seems that you were not notified). Tim Song (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

HighKing - where next?

Black Kite, you will no doubt notice that I've reverted HighKing's latest crop of Brtitish Isles deletions. You did say editors doing so would be blocked. All I can say is block me if you like. I will just ride out any block and won't try and circumvent it, or appeal against it. However, I hope you won't take such action, given the current unstable situation. I checked again on the history of HighKing's activities and can confirm this is the third campaign he's run to try and remove instances of British Isles. Between campaigns he does good work but the campaigns are clearly an attempt by HK to use Wikiepdia as a tool to further his own anti-British Isles agenda. There's no more obvious action in this than when he tags instances of British Isles for a reference. This particular tactic sends numerous other editors scurrying around looking for references, wasting time and engaging in endless discussions, on what all too often to the article in question, is a peripheral matter. In many cases it is not clear-cut whether BI is right, wrong or indifferent within the context of the article or section.

I feel we have now reached a situation where positive action must be taken against HighKing, perhaps with a view to banning him from editing British Isles-related articles. His current and former actions are just too dispruptive. He's now had two chances to reform but has not taken them. Pleae advise what is the best course of action for concerned editors such as me to take. Thanks, MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been away, and this is the kind of personal ad-hominen crap that sickens me when I see it. Talk of a "campaign", "agenda", "anti-British", "action must be taken", "banning him", etc, is insidious and underhanded. While I believe most people see through this, some don't, and an editors history and reputation gets seriously warped in the meantime. On another matter, I was asked to discuss edits up front (on my Talk page), which I disagreed with as it goes against WP ethos and I also see it as a form of censorship. On my (brief) return, I note that absolutely nothing has been done in the couple of days I've been away. No discussions, no task force beginning. Zilch. While MBM is quick to revert, he doesn't really seem to want to discuss anything, and his call to block me confirms that what's really going on here is a form of censorship. I'll wait a little longer to see if anything stirs on the task force page before doing anything. --HighKing (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Paramount networklogo.jpg

Under U.S Copyright law typefaces and simple geometric shapes can not be copyrighted see User:Elcobbola/Copyright, Template talk:PD-textlogo, Threshold of originality, Copyright#Typefaces and WP:Public domain#Fonts for info. As you can not copyright a triangle, a star and typefaces how can this logo be copyrighted? Powergate92Talk 06:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because it has 12 stars and a triangle doe's not make it copyrighted as under U.S Copyright law simple geometric shapes can not be copyrighted. Powergate92Talk 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If simple geometric shapes with text can be copyrighted then how is the ABC logo public domain? I asked User:BQZip01 what he thinks about File:Paramount networklogo.jpg as he knows more about this then me. Powergate92Talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Also the PD-textlogo tag on Commons says "This image, or text depicted in it, only consists of simple geometric shapes and text. They do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore public domain." Powergate92Talk 22:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:Template talk:PD-textlogo/en for info. Powergate92Talk 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at BQZip01's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Powergate92Talk 21:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet management complaint.

An ANI is open here concerning your actions at Fethullah_Gulen. I have reviewed the evidence and find no basis to the complaint, and regard the complainant as a sockpuppet.

Regardless, as a matter of due process I am "inviting" you to add your own comment about your actions, should you feel so inclined. Manning (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"complainer" seems more fitting than "complainant" --MZMcBride (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Japanese pronunciations and movie subtitles?

This is one thing which I haven't seen discussed, and since it involves redirecting I thought I would ask you. In many cases there are Japanese names given in parentheses next to translated anime (kanji and stuff) along with a romanji method of pronunciation. I was wondering, do you think it might be appopriate, for example, to redirect Sutitchi to Stitch!? Since the exclamation mark could cause trouble in people referring to it, I figured it's plausible people may use the romanji spelling to distinguish what they are talking about. This is an issue which might come up for other articles and I was wondering if people had spoken one way or another about the policies regarding that, so I could either read up on it or make a suggestion that it be clarified.

Oh and also would like to direct Stitch Has a Glitch to Lilo & Stitch 2: Stitch Has a Glitch, since sequels can be referred to by their subtitles. Same with Final Friday to Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, which was deleted, because just like it gets called Jason Goes to Hell it also gets called Final Friday. (You'll notice a similar one here by User:Amchow78 not created by me, or like Birth by Sleep. Doing these shorter titles without including the series title and number aids in locating I think. Tyciol (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection

You can unprotect Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names if you like, as the user causing the disruption, MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is now blocked. Cirt (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarifacation

The 3rr policy notes that exceptions can be

  • Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond.

If I am to hold back maybe we should reword this policy to make it less ambigous in it's intent. It would seem that making personal attacks here is generally construed by the majority as vandalism. In any case I in no way meant to violate the rule and was acting per the above blurb. ty for not blocking me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also per your reasoning on ANi, is an Article Talkspace considered within an article?
  • There is a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is also not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a few minutes to explain things here?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you check?

Sorry to bother you, but this User appears to be have been found guilty of being a sock puppet, but is still actively editing as can be seen here. You know the pages and their background hence the request to you rather than an ANI report. The various pages are confused when I try and trace back the actions. I didn't think you could be temporarily blocked for being a sock? --Snowded TALK 06:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of speedy template on M2 motorway

Can I please ask why you removed the speedy template on M2 motorway. User:Sarah777 continued to remove it despite her being the page creator. She has created an inappropriate disambiguation page, completely ignoring the existing M2 motorway (disambiguation). Do you believe that her actions are correct and that the proper disambiguation page shouldn't be in the correct place? Jeni (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More Philscirel

User:IcazOne was created with as only edit the Fethullah Gulen article; can you please block?

Can't we apply for an IP range block to prevent Philscirel from creating more sockpuppets, as this is rater annoying (and bad for the project). Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

I've now answered Q11 (c) which you posted after I had answered all the other questions. I hope the answer is to your satisfaction. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • For my money you didn't answer the question. I think the implied question is "if you could change it, how would you do so", obviously noting that you can't change it. Maybe Bk was looking for some understanding of where the NFCC comes from fair use law and where it comes from our principles (meaning that only a small portion of the NFCC actually has to do with justifying the re-use of copyrighted material). Maybe he was looking for you to suggest a way to thread the needle on living persons as this nyt piece seems to hint? But I doubt he was looking for an answer like yours. Just my thoughts. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The policy is clear in relation to LPs. The solution is in the hands of the celebs, they can authorise a decent photo of themselves for use in their article. I don't buy the arguement that by having one allowable free-use photo no photographer will ever be able to sell another photo of that celeb. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt the clarity of the policy, the NYT article was speaking to its wisdom. Nor do I feel that you had to give a specific answer with respect to non-free images. What I wanted to get across was that a complete answer to the question would have explored the counterfactual rather than demurred. It is your choice, and perhaps it was a proper one, but it didn't answer the question. Protonk (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I don't intend to go steaming in on image work anyway (or anywhere). I intend to start slowly in one or two areas and gradually expand from there once I feel I'm comfortable with the areas I've been working on. If a direct request for assistance with images comes in I'll deal with it if I think I can, or ask another admin for guidance if I feel I'm out of my depth. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Given RFAs unfortunate track record of flaying candidates for thoughtcrime, a candidate would be something of an idiot for actually answering these hypotheticals. A candidate who says "I would relax restrictions on Fair Use" would cause one faction to puff up and sanctimoniously shred the candidate for not understanding the principles of the project blah blah blah. Some variant vice versa, etc. We've seen enough examples where someone says "I understand the current policy, though if it were up to me I would change it thusly" and then get opposed for supporting something different than current policy. It's unfortunate, but the problem here is not with Mjroots -- he's been backed into a corner by the mindless partisanship that characterizes a lot of our disputes, and the large number of children at RFA who don't understand the difference between disobeying a rule, disagreeing with a rule, and merely wishing a rule could be different. --JayHenry (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty fair characterization of the bind candidates find themselves in. Even a penetrating response would face some unfair criticism. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I would actually argue a stronger form -- the more penetrating the response, the more opposition it will draw. I guarantee you that if I ran for RFA and outlined my detailed thoughts about NFCC, BLP, WP:NOT or CIV it would 1) be well-reasoned, deeply-considered, articulate and, I hope, penetrating; but 2) it would draw a bloodbath of opposition even though 3) I've barely worked with any of those issues and would have no intention of ever doing so. The only answers that don't create a lose-lose-lose are to demur, or to take on some completely vapid subject area along the lines of "if it were up to me I would let users delete their own userspace subpages." --JayHenry (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Therein lies a fundamental paradox of politics (both internal and democratic), of course. I probably would have demurred had someone asked me on my RfA. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, some of these questions are reasonable; it's certainly far better than the "old days" when the only questions people would get asked are ones that they could find the answer out to by reading the relevant policy page. For example (from my RfA) "When considering a protection request at WP:RFPP, what steps would you take in order to determine whether to protect or decline? ". Black Kite 20:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I agree the questions are marginally better. The stable of questions like "what is the difference between a block an a ban" are bad mostly because they are exceptionally asinine. But I only think that the questions are better if the candidates have an incentive to answer them honestly. I don't know if those incentives exist. Where we have incentives driving the other direction, the questions may be much worse. Protonk (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If a candidate did say, to use your example, that they wanted to relax the use of fair-use images, I would oppose them not because that's their opinion, but because I wouldn't completely trust them to close IfD debates, for example. Now that may sound like assuming bad faith, but to take another example if someone said that they considered the notability guidelines to be too stringest, I guarantee they'd get a pile of opposes because people wouldn't trust them with deletion decisions. Black Kite 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
But I think you need to engage w/ Jay's point. There is a difference between assent, disagreement and disruption. Answering a hypothetical with a position that NFCC ought to be different isn't the same as saying that the candidate would act as though the NFCC were different. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Black Kite proved my point, although I'm not sure it was his intention. Litmus tests, thoughtcrime, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point, actually - my oppose was based on the "There is a lot of friction created when fair use images are nominated for deletion" part of MJ's answer. This just seemed like a very odd point to make, and sounded like it was leading towards an "I'd relax fair use" answer without actually saying it, which is why I asked the supplementary question, and I don't think MJ answered that satisfactorily. That's the only reason I opposed. Black Kite 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to defend the premise, a bit. Asking a hypothetical like that allows the candidate to present their feelings on some rules which aren't normally discussed. Sometimes this exposes the rule and sometimes it might expose the candidate--most of the time you are right that it only really exposes the voter. But where it exposes the candidate I find questions like that helpful. There are a few RfAs in the past where a question like BK's has come up and a candidate has said something to the effect of "I think we should restrict editing to registered accounts". A perfectly reasonable position and one that is held by a large number of wikipedians (and if you ask me, Jimbo). However when that answer comes up, I feel compelled to look at the candidate's interactions with IP editors and new editors more closely. Obviously the candidate couldn't make the policy change himself and it would be close minded of me to oppose based on a difference of opinion but is it necessarily wrong to bring scrutiny to bear on that friction? I mean, if I had another RfA tomorrow and the question were asked of me I would respond by suggesting we nix WP:PSTS on the grounds that it is incoherent and inconsistent and nix WP:BLP on the grounds that is was born of a small scale moral panic. I can see the first one fomenting helpful discussion and the second one bringing about wailing and gnashing of teeth for the reasons you point out. But treating my answer as a proxy for my views isn't nefarious by itself. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Canadian vandals

There is a steady stream of vandalism coming from 142.29.0.0/16. This range belongs to the government of British Columbia which probably means it is a bunch of schools. I think you are probably going to say this is not heavy enough to justify a range block but could you take a look anyway to confirm that? It is quite difficult to detect unless you happen to spot several IPs in a row on the same article (eg the sequence on Vandals is clearly the same person or a group working in concert), and then who do you block, it will just switch to another IP. SpinningSpark 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the ones I started with were 142.29.132.192, 142.29.132.194 and 142.29.133.62 on the Vandals article which is reasonably narrow but looking down the results list I found vandalism from much lower numbers (eg 142.29.14.2) as well. Nearly all the edits in range are so consistently vandalism (or at least dubious) that I suspect this is all coming from the same institution. Oh and 142.29.12.66 has kicked off on Dictatorship SpinningSpark 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination)

Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination) as "no consensus". Since my comments were added at the latter half of the debate when all the previous participants had already voted, they did not take my arguments into account when they voted. Those who voted "keep" did not return to the debate to either agree with or rebut my arguments. Could I speedily renominate it to gauge more consensus? If you think it's okay to speedily renominate the article, please add something along the lines of "The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate." This ensures that the debate won't get speedily closed for disruptive, repeated nominations. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have renominated the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
why should anyone have to respond to your arguments? the result was no consensus. you can't just renominate it because people ignored you and you didn't like that. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As per your suggestion

Hi BlackKite, I went ahead in good faith to kick off a discussion to help formulate guidelines on this page. Your participation, both as a potentially interested party, and as a voice of reason, and mediator, etc, would be greatly appreciated. One of the main reason I decided to go down this route was because you and Snowded suggested this mechanism, and I anticipated some moderate views for balance. --HighKing (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take special note of MidnightBlueMan edits. If we're supposed to be resolving this at the Task Force, it's going to need help a little intervention and nudging in the right direction if you have the time. I've tried to discuss with him on the Task Force to date, but with no progress. --HighKing (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you think you could pop over to the Specific examples page to mediate a little? You intervention on matters of civility and personal comments, in particular, would be greatly appreciated. --HighKing (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi BK, do you think you'll be able to participate? TBH, there's not much point to the current attempt at guidelines unless moderate views from yourself and Snowded also get involved. I'm serious about engaging if there is a reciprocal seriousness from other editors, but otherwise the current process is really some sort of attempt at trying to implement a pre-approval of edits from extremists. --HighKing (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
ping. Not sure if you missed this? --HighKing (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinions on use of copyrighted media at Sacrifice

Hi, Could you take a look at Sacrifice and give your thoughts on the use of the copyrighted media at its peer reviews this, or this? I believe what I have used are correct in their use and qualify under WP:NFCC. However, I might be too close to the article (as its author) and a divorced view would be more clearer. Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_24&oldid=1139307749"