Jump to content

User talk:Black Kite/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Deletion review for siling labuyo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of siling labuyo. 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. Lambanog (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

About the deletion of Chinabounder

As I have stated,it is an internet phenomena.And the deletion was made too briefly after hanging the deleting proposal,So the deletion procedure are not a formal and legitimate one.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

IP range 166.205.xxx.xxx

Howdy BK. Thanks to this persistant anon harrasser, I've become even 'more' in favour of 'madatory registration'. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood Terrorist Attack

Please reconsider your deletion. Discussion was ongoing and you may be considered an involved party by your edits at ANI. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've undone your close. You are most certainly an involved administrator, and you articulated a closure reason ("implausible redirect") not advocated by any participant. Note that re-deleting the redirect would be wheel warring. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I left a comment on the DRV RfD. I'm uninterested in being the "third admin", but I would like to close the DRV. Please advise. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Protonk, I have no issue with you closing the RfD, even if you choose to do so with precisely the same close Black Kite articulated. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't read his close, just was crafting one in a window when I tabbed over to my watchlist. Protonk (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Closed, but not the way I expected to. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised you condoned reopening the discussion in this manner, Protonk. Black Kite was not involved by any measure I can see, and I'm pretty sure I said my comment partly addressed the "implausible redirect" question. Jclemens, on the other hand, was entirely involved - making his warning to Black Kite against misusing the tools slightly ironic. Nathan T 03:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I dunno. I just closed it based on the status of the page when I navigated to it. Protonk (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Complete and unmitigated bullshit. Jclemens has been harping about both this and his pathetic, pointy Hiroshima redirect and is about involved as one can get in these RfDs. and HE is the one who overturns another admin's close which opens the door for a bogus no consensus? This is going to AfD and Clemens is going to DRV, if not a desysop proceeding. I will certainly see to both. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Already at AN/I, actually. Nathan T 03:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work, BK. Not sure why Jclemens saw it fit to revert you (the whole AN/I thread can easily be summarized as "ughwtf"). If you (or anyone else) decides to take the deletion to Deletion review, please let me know. Not sure what the hell Protonk was thinking either—seemed like sufficient consensus to delete (the tl;dr aspect aside). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Very much agreed with MZM on all points - Jclemens was way out of line with the reversion of the close, Protonk was incorrect, and this should be taken to DRV. I'd also like to be notified of DRVs and any actions against Jclemens. GlassCobra 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I had guessed the closing statement was a window into what the hell I was thinking. Protonk (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If this hasn't made it to DRV by the time I get home in a bit over 2 hours time I will put it there myself. ViridaeTalk 04:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A word of thanks/question:

Thanks for taking care of 202.70.50.169 (talk · contribs). The vandal from Indonesia has troubled me as well as several users for two years now using the same operandi of inserting misinformation on various articles (especially Digimon, general anime, ABS-CBN, and movie studio-related ones) using various IP addresses. The following are the addresses he used from the 202.70.50.x range alone (202.70.50.0/24 to be precise):

I can list the other addresses he had used from as far back as last July (aside from 202.70.50.0/24, the others are all from the 125.16x.x.x range, 114.59.x.x range, and the currently blocked 118.137.x.x range) as well as the first original report I made on WP:AN/I about his actions back in December 2007, as well as other reports from several other editors.

For the meantime, is a rangeblock on the 202.70.50.0/24 range for longer than 31 hours possible? The range was previously blocked for 31 hours because of this vandal's misinformation. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the 202.70.50.0/24. BTW, I've also filed a report on WP:AN/I on what to the vandal has done, as well as some links to archives on previous reports on him, either by me or by NeoChaosX to show how far back his vandalism had troubled people. You can give your input there. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Special school

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Special school. 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. Rovea (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you endorsed it. I have provided enough reasons and still you endorsed it. Rovea (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You keep giving me the same answer. How about reading this? Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Rovea (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cavalera Conspiracy/archive1.
Message added 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cannibaloki 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Will You review?

Pueblo City Park Carousel. I started this with three sources. I had a misunderstanding about copy vio so it was removed corectly. I had the source Carousel news that says" In 1940, the City Commissioner of Parks and Highways arranged for Pueblo Public Park District No. 2 to purchase C.W. Parker #72. The ride was installed south and east of Goodnight Avenue; however it lacked a building to protect it at this point. " The arguement that was then brought is how do we know that Pueblo Pueblo Park District 2 is Pueblo Ciity Park, so I linked to a seperate article written about the city park from a former employee that describes how our parks were brokedn up into district. I then add a Pueblo City Park website link where it further states. "The Carousel operated with some Horses missing while funds were being raised. The Rose Horse Trio was restored first and presented to the City Council in 1981. Colorado Governor Richard Lamm unveiled the Armored Horse Trio during a Chamber of Commerce breakfast, helping to maintain interest in the campaign." and this was still not enough. I have added another source "This three-abreast C.W. Parker "Jumping Horse Carry-Us-All", with thirty-six hand carved horses, includes one lover’s tub and one chariot. It was purchased by J.J. McQuillian, owner of the Lake Minnequa Amusement Park, in 1914. During the Depression, the carousel was sold to the city and moved to City Park sometime between 1937 and 1941." Can you explain to me how I was wrong in this other then geting upset that I had to draw pictures for the other guy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you have a chat with teh other guy then? I had carousel new on it since it's first inception. I tried to copy it and he fought me every inch of the way. That's why I was so pissed, it was there all along. Unfortunately there just isn't a whole great deal of coverage on it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for the unblock. I always did like you. -- Kendrick7talk 03:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Chinabounder

Thanks for your friendly remind of instruction of deletion review,I just want to make sure you have justify your deletion.There's 3 for and 2 against for the deletion,A majority of deletion decision was not made.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice on rangeblock, please?

Hi. I see you blocked 202.70.50.169 yesterday. The same guy turned up on 202.70.50.180 today, and the user who reported him said he is a long-term problem and asked for a rangeblock. I replied that as the vandal pops up every few days on a different IP, a short term rangeblock wouldn't do much good, and long-term rangeblocks are discouraged, but as a very new admin I would ask you for a second opinion. The conversation on my talk page is here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Howard Moss (singer)

Hi, you deleted this and the article page:

  • 19:56 . . Black Kite (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Howard Moss (singer)" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
  • 19:56 . . Black Kite (talk | contribs) deleted "Howard Moss (singer)" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Not a G4 (that needs an AfD) but doesn't assert notability)

However the talk page seems to have re-appeared today, [1]. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Unfulfilled religious predictions

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Unfulfilled religious predictions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled religious predictions. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep result at AfD for Can't Hang

I'm surprised by your decision to close this AfD as "Keep", since there didn't appear to be any consensus in the very few comments that were made regarding the AfD. My opinion is that this AfD should have either been re-listed to get more comments, or closed as "No consensus". It appears that you have interjected your own personal opinion about this article instead of analyzing the comments of the !voters for consensus.

Your comment about WP:MUSIC#SONGS is not cut and dry. It states that songs that have been ranked on national or significant charts are probably notable, but they are still subject to passing the general notability guidelines, which includes having multiple independent sources. As I stated in my nomination, most (if not all) of these songs did not appear to have any reliable, good-quality sources other than lyrics sites.

Charting on the billboard top 50 does not automatically mean that an article about that song should exist, nor does it mean that the song is automatically notable. Do you know how many songs have charted in the billboard top 50? In the future, I respectfully ask that you look for consensus in AfD's before closing them instead of making your vote the only vote that counts. SnottyWong talk 12:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsBreak

Hi, I'm surprised with your closure of that AfD as delete, in particular your surprising statement that "if any information can be found about this software, then it can be entered there". Perhaps you didnt read the discussion about the sources found? I could have understood your closure if it was merge and redirect, which technically closes as a keep. If effect, you have now deleted whatever minor info there was, contrary to editing policy. Please reverse your closure as a merge and redirect, to keep edit history. thanks Power.corrupts (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

USC

Hi, Re the Ulster Special Constabulary article. I'm a little concerned that you think my edits are pov or 'skewed'. What I'm trying to do is create a page that is concise, npov and also readable. It's also very much a work in progess. The current page is my intended finished version.

I would also like to work with other editors - who don't just revert everything. So in good faith, why do you think the edits I made are pov?

Regards, Jdorney (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. But you also said to big Dunc that you don't mind if he reverts everything that is not the lede. I simply don't know how to proceed if people really think what's there now is better than this User:Jdorney/Ulster Special Constabulary. Or that it's ok to not participate in discussion and then revert all the work that has been done. I'm not surprised at Domer's behaviour but I need some support if anyone is going to clean up this article.

Of particular concern is the current disbandment section, where there is a whole pragraph saying the USC was the equivilent of the Nazi stromrtroopers. I honestly don't understand how this is still in the article. Jdorney (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so who can? Jdorney (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Question

Hi. You just left a message on my talk page. Other people make redirects for different capitalisations, so why can't I? Check out Darth vader, Blue oyster cult, and Asajj ventress. You see, other people make redirects for different capitalisations. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. But why would Wikipedia make the template "R from other capitalisation" if you think this is unnecessary?

XxTimberlakexx (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

== why u delate wealthy historical figure 2008 / 2007 /2006 ? == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.144.157.7 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)



Richard Warren (musician) edit

Hi Could you tell me why you've deleted all the album and single artwork from the page For Richard Warren (musician) . I took advice and thought I had listed all the correct licenses etc? As I stated in the text, he designs all the artwork himself and considers it a very important part of his work Thanks Cronk69 (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Black Kite. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, my RfA didn't go too badly after all, only a few scratches. I'm sure your nomination helped ease my passage. Fences&Windows 23:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion image

Got your message at my talk. Sorry if I caused you any aggravation. Please see my talk, where I answered further. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for what you said. I've commented a little more at my talk, and a lot more at the page's talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

IP range

Since you already have knowledge of this, http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&ip=202.70.50.0/24 , here are some additions: Special:Contributions/202.155.92.10, Special:Contributions/202.70.54.32, Special:Contributions/202.70.50.180, Special:Contributions/202.70.50.181 « ₣M₣ » 12:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:LevenBoy, User:Mister Flash and British Isles

The following reverts were carried out against your specific rules and without providing references by User:LevenBoy:

Please note that this account appears to exist solely to stalk my edits, revert my edits and generally cause disruption. Also note the ad hominen comments. It was your initial verbal push and promise of monitoring and support that made me agree to the SE page, which I believe has been pretty successful in cutting down on the general disruption, but it'll only work if all users are treated equally and fairly. I rarely call for a block, but in this case I can't see an alternative that will actually work and cause this editor to alter their behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on! who you trying to kid. That edit at Christmas - your summary was "revert silly edit". I said you can change that article about a composer but instead you cause agro everywhere else. What are you about? Mister Flash (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
And I see you've got your sidekick User:Doofer at it as well; using Wikipedia as a tool to promote your personal political agenda, that is. Mister Flash (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It now appears it's OK to breach civility and goad other editors on an admins page. Although only the privileged can get away with that....lucky you. Blocks have been handed out for less. --HighKing (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding User:Mister Flash's contributions for attention (although I ain't holding my breath):
  • This comment on another users page is a clear breach of policy, and is an attempt to bully another editor to not participate.
The editor has left inappropriate commentary in many edit summaries, for example:
Hopefully you'll find the time and inclination to do what needs to be done... --HighKing (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

BK, why are you suddenly deciding to ignore this issue? Fine if you are. Just let me know. I mean, in practice it's obvious since you've not once enforced any of your rules, haven't bothered to warn other participants that a code of conduct exists and will be enforced, haven't pulled any of these editors up for their blatant rule breaking and personal comments, etc, etc. Just don't expect me to go along with and future censorship attempts - I've given this an genuine honest run, but it seems I'm the only one left standing... This is hugely frustrating for me, when editors and admins are shown to be one-sided in their thought processes and encourage disruption by inaction over enforcing the very rules they created. --HighKing (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks Mr Kite for the warning, different from the others I see. You obviously only looked at the first half of the top page of my contributions to come to wrong conclusion that I'm just here to edit war on British Isles. You know, if you look at a bit of history here you'll see the whole bowl of porridge can be traced back to HighKing, every last grain of it. And what about the edit warring of that Doofer? Mister Flash (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please use the right warnings...

this edit is inappropriate in light of WP:NOTVAND. It would be more accurate to have left him a note on NPOV and edit warring, which I was on my way to do when I noted the vandalism warning. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the user should have known better. I wouldn't have opposed an outright short block for POV warring in such an over-the-top manner. 1Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spot the Sock

???? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it you. You're a classic, boy! Limited basic material on your user page, for a start. Mister Flash (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, who's using the sock? GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea (well...), and it doesn't matter. Black Kite 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there's actually more than one sock operating on this.... --HighKing (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm sure you would think that wouldn't you. Gives you the excuse for this. So, Black Kite, I await your blocking of HighKing and other sactions, given this and this. And as for his attempt to junk BI from Brown Bear. Well, knock me over with a caber. That's just about at the top of linked items at British Isles so what you going to do. Work down the list one at a time and bring agro to thousands of articles for an indefinite time. We all look forward to that one. Sheesh, no wonder we got socks operating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Flash (talk • contribs) 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Eh ... trying to junk Brown Bear? Did you even bother to read what I said? --HighKing (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that you've made more reverts on BI articles in the last few days than HighKing, I'd be careful about asking for blocks, to be honest. You might get what you wish for. Black Kite 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Wrong! Since 27 Nov he's made about 10 reverts, I've done 4. The ones I've done were in response to his "silly edit" and the user with the unpronouncable name. But here's the point; to compare him with me you'd have to be looking for cases where BI didn't exist and I put it in, to be a fair comparison with his taking it out where it did exist, that would make it 10:0 to him. Gradually, ever so slowly, this guy is getting rid, but you know that, so I don't really know why I'm telling you it. Know what? seems to me you're a bit biased here. You've got an underlying sympathy with those who want rid. I'd maybe move on if I was you before you're caught out big style. Mister Flash (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually count 9 reverts by you since 27 November. Also, I'm so biased that I've given out two blocks today, one for reverting to BI and one against (and that was a sock anyway). The time when I'm intimidated by a single-purpose account whose entire reason for being on Wikipedia is to edit-war on BI-related articles will probably be the time when I do give up. That won't be any time soon, though. Can I suggest that if you're going to post here again, you do so constructively? Thanks. Black Kite 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a constructive one List of extinct states. HighKing clearly violated the 1RR on it. He knew of your rules cos he never stops citing them, now I don't expect you to ban him for this, but at the very least this article should be returned to the version before he got at it. Mister Flash (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Violated 1RR? Eh ... no. At least try to be honest. --HighKing (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, 9 reverts - on four articles, mostly in response to the edit warring antics of the unpronouncable one. Mister Flash (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted that one back since it's long standing - needs to go to SE page. Black Kite 00:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you and goodnight. Mister Flash (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)BK, I see you reverted List of extinct states. Note that it was already discussed on the SE page, and the conclusion was to change it (perhaps you missed it?). And thank you for sorting out the recent disruption, although I firmly believe that for some editors, blocks might get home the point, especially on civility issues and ad hominen edit summaries. --HighKing (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

QGKITKSD

What is this QGKITKSD of which you speak and where can I obtain some? :) Good comment by the way. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

sleeper

Farnshon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sleeper Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scibaby

Disruption by HighKing

Hello Black Kite and thanks for the posts on my Talk page clarifying the situation. Here's the problem as I see it. We have a single editor who for about two years has been trying to eliminate British Isles from Wikipedia. Here's an early example [2] though I suspect there are others before this. There doesn't seem to be any other editor who has engaged in this type of disruption. Even hard-case Irish republicans have not tried it. What, if anything, are you going to do about it? The Special Examples page is a sham. It lists articles that contain British Isles and the sole intention of listing is subsequent removal. If the page also listed cases of say, Britain and Ireland, with a view to replacement with British Isles, then I and others may be able to take it more seriously. As it is, it's just HK's latest tactic to further his ambition. You have previously talked about topic bans. Well I urge you to go for this. You will never solve this with SE pages, threats and whatever else. This disruption is not going to go away unless you take really positive action. Just look what's happened today:

I await your response. Discussion doesn't work when you've got the situation we have at the moment, and as others have noted, the root cause is just one editor with a long-running objective. LevenBoy (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For further information, I've reverted that change at England_national_football_team. LevenBoy (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll go into more detail on this later as I'm a bit busy at the momen, but basically the one problem with that approach, of course, is - what about the times when HK is right, and BI doesn't apply? That was the rationale behind the SE page. I have, however, got another idea, which I'll expand on later. Black Kite 13:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
BK, funny how editors always try to claim a dark and nefarious motive to any edits they simply don't like. Not even to try to discuss specifics on a page set up especially to discuss use of "British Isles". The most disruptive editors here are simply stonewalling and trying to incite a political and nationalistic reaction to retain use of "British Isles" at any cost, right or wrong.
At the start of setting up the SE page, ground rules were put into effect, and the expectation was that you would participate and ensure smooth running of the discussion. Yet the very editors who refuse to discuss, who blindly state that "British Isles" is correct everywhere with banal reasons such as:
On top of that, you have simply refused to issue any blocks - which serves to simply encourage disruptive behaviour with no fear of sanctions.
The SE page was set up voluntarily, by me, even though as you know, I objected to it as a form of pre-approval of edits which goes against the spirit of this project. But in the interests of the project, and most especially in the interests of stabilizing articles and providing visibility on the type of usage which is clearly incorrect, I agreed with the objective of ending up with references cases and practical guidelines. As an experiment, it looks like it might actually work.
But it needs somebody to monitor the process and take an active role in limiting disruption. The recent activity on your Talk page shows that something must actually be working. The levels of hysteria surrounding the page, and the subsequent article changes, exposes totally those who "do not like it", and the SE page gives visibility to common sense discussion juxtapositioned with stonewalling and digging in of heels.
Limiting disruption is why the SE page was created. Allowing disruption to continue without carrying out the sanctions outlined, in effect, undermines the SE page and undermines the good faith participation of many editors on that page. Perhaps you are now tired of the topic, or perhaps you believe it is a bigger subject that the attention on single admin can bring. I simply don't know.
What I do know and realize, is that you have now effectively ended the SE page with the statement I have, however, got another idea, which I'll expand on later. I'd like to understand clearly why you have written off the SE page and why you have allowed the disruption to continue. If it's not working, should we not try to understand the reasons (I have my own ideas on that)? Let's recognize that there's an elephant in the room and deal with it. --HighKing (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Woah, hang on. I'm not suggesting ending the SE page, I think it's useful. However, I'm more concerned with ending the persistent edit-warring on such articles, and the "idea" I referred to above is more of an extension to the SE page than a replacement. I'm very busy tonight, but I'll say more soon. Black Kite 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I appreciate that something needs to be done. Keep on eye though... --HighKing (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so there's no mis-understanding. Anybody who wishes to bring up articles at the SE page, that they feel 'British Isles' should be added to? by all means, do so. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Black Kite 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I also support topic bans. I tried to agree with HighKing to deal just with the obviously wrong cases, and I thought he would, but then look at what's happening over at the SE page. Every single issue he's raised is one where there's no right or wrong. This is going to run and run, with much time wasting and ill feeling. The whole matter spreads out and infects the encyclopedia. The one about Unitised Insurance is beyond belief. You've got about four editors arguing over something that probably none of them know anything about. If that's not a recipe for the introduction of mis-information I don't know what is. Sooner or later someone might do something. One can only live in hope. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually think that RFAR is going to be the only option here. I certainly haven't time to prepare one at the moment, but may have some time this weekend. Black Kite 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
See my note below. But seriously ... MBM is complaining of what exactly? Articles getting fixed? Discussion of articles to understand the underlying principals and guidelines around usage? The fact that everyone is welcome to contribute in good faith? That he disagrees with some of the logic being used (but refuses to develop guidelines..)? And after his note on my Talk page, I introduced the "Brown Bear" discussion as an example of where BI is used absolutely perfectly correctly? Not sure what more I can do. But I know that for some editors, it appears that "British Isles" is a sacred and holy term which is never wrong. --HighKing (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting a bit silly

This latest example illustrates the problems with editors who are really not engaging with the subject but are insisting on BI regardless, which is as bad as removing it entirely. I think its getting to the point where some editors, active on the page are only interesting in taking a political position. I asked Mister Flash if he had ever agreed to the removal of BI and got a straight "No". In this case we have a clear synthesis but a refusal to engage with getting a decent set of cases together. Is it time to take further action? --Snowded TALK 22:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if you need any help or work done let me know. --Snowded TALK 23:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
@BK @Snowded. In a nutshell, the SE page isn't working because there's a high degree of confidence now, that the threatened sanctions will not actually be carried out. There's a handful of editors on the SE page which as has been pointed out by Snowded, are not engaging in meaningful discussion, and are not interested in collaboration. They have a different agenda. If those editors receive blocks for breaches, and there's no tolerence for incivility, their contributions about content will be plain for all to see, which will enable other editors to engage meaningfully. If after that, the SE page still fails, then I will agree that Rfar is the correct next step. --HighKing (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC 3RR

Farnshon made one edit to the article, and it was reverted by TS, not WMC so your reasoning appears to be invalid. All of WMC's reverts were made against legitimate users. WVBluefield (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Farnshon was only suspected at that point. Martylunsford was not a sock andTillman was not a sock so please familiarize yourself with the locus of this dispute before commenting again. WVBluefield (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's too difficult to work out that even re-inserting material by a probable banned sock isn't the greatest idea. Now, as said at AN3, dispute resolution is the venue for this issue. Black Kite 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad image list

Hello. [3] Any reason for this? I would fix it but I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He blanked your talk page to tell you this

Hi, thanks for deleting my article on University Mall in Athens Ohio. I am glad you were able to pinpoint an article that did not interest you and so were able to feel important for deleting something that I worked hard writing. I agree the mall is very small and probaby not very important in the grand scheme of things. Anyone who grew up in Athens Ohio in the 90's knew this mall in such a small town was one of the few fun places to hang out. A lot of us grew up here, and when I returned ten years later after having left Athens, the mall was a shell of it's former self. I was very curious, and figured anyone else curious might like to know what I found to be a very interesting story to go along with it. I wrote what I felt was a very entertaining article and you deleted it based on the fact that it was not of notable importance. I always thought the point of Wikipedia is that you can find out anything about anything. But this will never be true as long editors delete article based how "important" they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostscribe (talk • contribs)

Thank You

The Anti-Flame Barnstar
For taking the time to care to help cool me down when I was acting like a dick. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Els Smekens‎

Thanks for this. My first instinct was to redirect, but I threw a prod notice on it instead in case someone wanted to take a crack at fleshing it out a bit and make an argument for notability outside of WP:BLP1E. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip

Thank you for your tip, which I have referenced at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Die4Dixie. Jehochman Talk 02:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Userfication

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE. Apparently missed my request? --Gwern (contribs) 21:35 27 November 2009 (GMT)

Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 30 November 2009 (GMT)

Francis ngokumu

Could you salt it as well?— Dædαlus Contribs 22:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Also, could you perhaps change the color of the text here to something other than white? I can't read it. Thanks.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Salted it (and the correct capitalization too). The text here looks black to me - what browser are you using? Black Kite 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Firefox, and now I see that the problem seems to be caused by something above the barnstar, as everything else works fine above it... I don't know what's wrong.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Here, I'll take a screenshot.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the hell you just did, it works, slightly, now. All the text below is fixed, but now specific parts of Gwern's post are white.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I got rid of a few bits of redundant html. But it looks fine now in FF 3.0.15 to me ... Black Kite 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hrm, I'm using 3.5.5, and it looks like this to me.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, I think I just fixed it, seemed to be the problem of an unclosed font tag.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I'd just seen it. Thanks - it gave me an excuse to update Firefox anyway :) Black Kite 22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
:D, hehe. Glad I could help.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Kim J. Henriksen, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Yekrats (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Functional temporalism

A curse on you, Black Kite. I said I required more time! This is heavy-handed editing at its worse. MaxWeberJr (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt Kassel

I really hope you'll reconsider the deletion, without necessitating a DRV. It should be clear to any good Wikipedia community servant that consensus in a particular situation trumps any sort of general principle--and the consensus that had emerged in this particular situation to keep trumps the general principles you cited in your closing rationale. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, I don't see how there was a consensus to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Kassel. Will you reevaluate your close? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I'd like it to DRV please, I think there's an important point at stake here. Black Kite 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
What important point is at stake here? By the way, I have taken the article to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9#Matt Kessel. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi BK (re a block you placed)

[4]. This has to deal with User Talk:Boneyarddog, an block that you placed a couple weeks ago. Just an FYI and alerting you to the discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Well that was complete bollocks. Obvious sock, obviously created by an experienced editor who knows about CU, created purely to revert on a 1RR article. That's the last time I touch anything to do with The Troubles (or British Isles naming dispute for that matter). Some other poor fucker can sort them out. Black Kite 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Powergate92's talk page.
Message added 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Powergate92Talk 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And now... yes, you've guessed it

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Hudecki_(2nd_nomination)

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip 04:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One British Isles editor is reporting another for 1RR violation at User talk:2over0#1RR, but cannot point to any more specific sanctions than your comments at User talk:Þjóðólfr#Edit-warring on BI articles. I do not see this topic area listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions - is your warning of six weeks ago still in force? Notification to user twice reverting the same material. For the nonce, I have just locked the article in question. Sorry for bringing this to your doorstep. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And even sorrier to see that you have retired. Rest well, and let me be the first to welcome you back if you see this :). - 2/0 (cont.) 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RETAKE undeletion

See User talk:Gwern#Stumpwm. I just realized that the same point applied to User_talk:Gwern#Yes.2C_I_did_miss_it.21. --Gwern (contribs) 21:43 16 January 2010 (GMT)

Are you retired?

I wish you were retired, Black Kite, the pauline kael film page looks better, in my opinion, with the posters -why are you obsessed with making it look less fun to read. The quotes with the posters are related to the films depicted, what is your problem?. I did the same with taking it all in another of her film books, and you've left that page. 92.23.115.249 (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Starfleet insignia

I don't know why you are rude in your edit summaries-I wasn't rude to you, and most people, based on your archives, have had a positive experience with you. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Past Block Question

A user Malke 2010 who you had previously blocked for removing some content (disruptive editing) despite discussion on the matter that seemed to indicate the majority supported its inclusion has again came back sometime later and removed the same exact content again. The original admin noticeboard thread is here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive107#User:Malke 2010 reported by User:Chhe (Result: 48h) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#User:Malke 2010. The discussion regarding the edit was first discussed here -->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 8#Phony Citations #38 and #39 under heading, George W. Bush Administration and Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 8#Request for admin intervention. The user then came back later in December 2009 and removed the same exact passage again so I started a new talk page section here Talk:Karl Rove#Again massive removal of content by Malke 2010 and undid the edit. The discussion didn't go anywhere since after this the user started an unsuccessful ANI and wiqiquette thread regarding me after that. I thought the whole matter was over until today when I saw the user made the same exact edit again [5]. Here is a list of some of the past same edits [6][7][8][9]. I'm not sure what I should do. What should I do? Should I undo this edit and start a new section on the talk page to try to restart a new discussion? Whats the best way to handle this matter?Chhe (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Black Kite. The content I removed on the Karl Rove page is not supported by citations. It appears to be WP:SYN and a vio of WP:NPOV and that is why I removed it. Chhe doesn't participate in discussions on the Karl Rove talk page. He doesn't contribute neutral content or try to work within consensus. I've posted all the problems with the article many times on the talk page but unfortunately, Chhe doesn't acknowledge me there.
Chhe has also followed me to other pages and reverted my edits there. These are pages where he has no history there at all. And again, on those pages, as on the Karl Rove page, Chhe does not offer constructive content or discussion towards consensus. He seems only interested in disruption. If you like, I will provide you with many, many diffs that support my statement. And as you yourself can see on the Karl Rove talk page, I worked very hard to bring consensus to the issue of the Bill Moyer's quote. Even Chhe had to admit there, that the solution I came up with was a good one. Thank you.Malke2010 18:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_28&oldid=1140121651"