Jump to content

User talk:Black Kite/Archive 60

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


ITN

Hello, I see that your active at ITN, and I was wondering if you could you please post Roddy Piper to the RD ticker at ITN? I'd rather not have a repeat of the Dusty Rhodes fiasco where it had consensus for several days but was ignored by admins then rejected for being too old. It's been several days and the discussion has stalled. There is overwhelming consensus to post, and the article has improved markedly. ITN is not GAC, and while the article is far from perfect, I think 134 references is more than enough. -- Scorpion0422 00:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement proposed decision

Hi Black Kite, in the open Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, consensus is what consensus is . . . .

"Endorse. It appears that consensus is firmly in the camp that having a really poor article about popular cat names is improving an online encyclopedia."

I just found this by accident while looking for something else in old DRV, and I wanted you to know that I have not laughed so hard in a very long while. Cheers, BK. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

UK Independence Party

protection level.

Hi, as I see you raised the protection level to admin only after protection decreased and the edit war returned. I see the reason for the edit war is now sorted as per this edit. Please reduce the protection level to semi protected or pending protection. I see there are still unanswered edit requests from days ago on the talkpage, such as Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Protected_edit_request_on_5_August_2015 which is not optimal. Ta Govindaharihari (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It was more than that one item, but removing the protection makes sense now. I suggest a 1rr restriction as a interim ----Snowded TALK 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, I agree that a one revert restriction would benefit in the interim if that is a possibility Govindaharihari (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Heads up, I posted the request at wp:rfpp Govindaharihari (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Now semi-protected. Airplaneman ✈ 16:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-spanonblock

Template:Uw-spanonblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change

See Special:Contributions/78.145.29.250. The IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change made these edits, which were reverted per WP:BMB and WP:DENY. Note edit summaries mentioning you:

Note that the IP has not yet been blocked. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello, Black Kite, nice to hear from you. I hope you considered my measured comments on the Vishy Anand talk page. Notice, no citations have been provided to dispel the fact of Anand's place in chess history. I cited ex world champ, Volodya Kramnik. If you want, I can cite chess journalists or I can cite even the FIDE President (head of world chess governing body) saying this. This is neither a controversial or even a disputable issue. My only goal is to make the Anand page better. The other wiki member is not providing any citations to dispute this fact, but is instead stating his opinion. He seems to be more of an Indian cricket fan (?) than a chess fan and maybe he is trying to downplay Anand's achievements (I don't know, I find it weird and I won't delve any further). The Anand page is pretty poor. I'm trying to make it better by offering properly sourced citations. I was also planning on doing the same with Kramnik's page, but this whole incident just turns me off from doing so. I hope you find my comments in good spirit, so God bless and take care. P.S I also sent this to your message box as well ;) Exxcalibur808 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy have been enacted:

  1. The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

Lowering protection on the Cultural Marxism REDIRECT

Hi Black Kite, there's an editorial discussion over at The Frankfurt School talk page, about adjusting the heading that "Cultural Marxism" re-directs to. All parties seem fairly polite and competent in this discussion, and accordingly we don't want to break the current redirect when we adjust the heading. The protection on it was set by you [1], thanks for that by the way, so as per WP:RFP we're coming to you first. I feel that lowering the protection level to indefinite semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it would be appropriate, allowing us to adjust the heading according to consensus whilst still protecting the redirect from IP vandalism. Here is a link to the page we're talking about: [2]. Thanks for any help you can offer. --Jobrot (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to lowering the protection level, given the amount of disruption related to it. Various parties have attempted to create forks at Cultural marxism and Cultural Marxist to get around the protection, suggesting that the time is not ripe for a lowering of protection on this redirect. If a change is needed, I suggest an edit request. RGloucester — ☎ 11:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If people start acting ridiculously I'll simply restore it back and lock it again. Let's at least AGF for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful

Hi. I'll assume it was a glitch, and I have fixed the issue, but please try not to erase comments in other sections while adding your own. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

Just as a notice, I upgraded the IP removal to suppression per policy point 1. Thanks for the revdel in the first place, happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:Editnotices/Page/2015–16 Premier League

Template:Editnotices/Page/2015–16 Premier League, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Editnotices/Page/2015–16 Premier League and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:Editnotices/Page/2015–16 Premier League during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Anniepoo

Please make a contact ban between us, I don't want her to talk to me and she probably hates me. Rubbish computer 17:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please place an interaction ban between us, this has wasted a lot of my time. Rubbish computer 18:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Socking IPs

Hi Black Kite. You blocked 166.176.58.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a block evading sock. Care to take a stab at some of the other obvious sock IPs? A range block would be ideal if collateral damage is minimal, but up to you. They include the following:

All of these are active in the cite DOI discussions and clearly belong to the same person. 166.176.56.0/22 would hit it all, but I don't know what the activity on that range looks like. ~ RobTalk 20:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Too much collateral, unfortunately. I've just blocked one of the latest ones (there's no point in blocking previous ones, because it's a dynamic address) for a month to keep the block up. You can revert any of these IPs commenting on DOI or WOP topics as block evasion (and report them at AIV if they're disruptive). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look. Is there any easy way for a non-admin to check collateral? It would probably save time if I were able to check for that before requesting a range block. A script maybe? ~ RobTalk 20:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
      • If you go to Preferences > Gadgets > Advanced, and tick the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges..." box, you can enter those CIDR ranges instead of a user name or IP address in the normal contributions page. I looked at 166.176.0.0/16 and ... there's a lot of stuff there. Note that /16 ranges sometimes take a while to load. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

John Tummolo

Stop preventing JOHN TUMMOLO from getting well-deserved professional credit for his seminal, first-in-class, design and development work performed at Trintex and Prodicgy Services company. Your persistent refusal to reference my name, but retain my words, is tantamount to professional defamation of character - especially given YOU CAN FIND REFERENCES to my work in PRODIGY patents.

Grow up. Be human. Join civil society. Revert the constant entries your asinine opinion deems "destructive". If you want Wikipedia to be taken SERIOUSLY report reality, not scoped framed nonsense. It's truly amazing puerile behavior. Who's paying you to quash my references? Who? Come out of the dark shadows coward.

  • Not at all. If you could actually add reliable sources that aren't undue to the articles that you've been trying to change for a long time, there's a chance that other editors might, if not accept them, actually discuss them. But carrying on simply inserting the material without sources over and over again means that other editors will simply revert it. If you can find such sources, get yourself to the talk page of the article and suggest the changes with those sources attached. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Changed IP again

Diff Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite

I'm writing to thank you for the actions you have taken wrt. the user Burst of unj and Alan Kurdi. Before the listing on the administrator's noticeboard which you acted upon, I had tried to get similar action taken by making a complaint there myself, but it was only after the intervention there of more senior and certainly better and also less emotive editors than myself that you did what you did. I am very grateful. Please delete this if you wish after reading. All the very best to you. Boscaswell (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

Why did you revert my edit? I think the article deserves some balance. Only anti-magisterial sources disputed by the church are cited. I am showing the orthodox Catholic view. 83.128.175.68 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Because you (a) removed sourced material and replaced it with text sourced to an article which begins "Last week I began to expose the coordinated efforts of well-funded gay-rights groups to subvert the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.."; this is unlikely to be a reliable source, (b) inserted material not found in the source quoted ("amongst more liberal Catholics", and (c) inserted unsourced opinions ("Some Liberals have asserted..."). Who are these "liberals"? What is the definition of "liberal" (it changes from country to country)? What neutral source says they are "liberal"? By all means attempt to add new relevant material, but you will need to find better sources than that, and all your additions must be sourced properly. It may be better to suggest improvements to the article on the talk page. Regards, Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis

Here he comes again, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/54.157.243.172 , he is clearly using numerous IPs from all over the place, he even said he will be doing that when he got blocked. Black Kite, a question, how to deal with him at discussions? FkpCascais (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Piggate

I'd love to take credit for https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Piggate&type=revision&diff=682297498&oldid=682297388, but it's actually Anameofmyveryown's work. I simply restored it along with the legal discussion (which certainly belongs here).

As the easily confusable Snoutrage does redirect here, then there is some justification for a version of this hatnote. Especially if the article is renamed (as appears quite likely). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Heimdallr of Æsir

Would you mind unblocking Heimdallr? I edit-conflicted with your close (I opened the edit window and then left it open for ten minutes while investigating), so I left my intended close message after the {{archive bottom}}. This is a clear case of the reporter and a couple of other editors intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting the source, and Heimdallr was restoring the article to comply with the source: I'm thoroughly unwilling to block someone for fighting tag-teamed hoaxing, whether or not the hoaxing is intentional. Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  • You're welcome, and thank you. The links quickly showed me that this wasn't the unambiguous situation that the reporter made it look like. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • PS, you linked the sockpuppet investigation. Since it was too old for CU, I'm not sure how long we have to wait (or what we have to do) to get a behavioral investigation. Of course I won't have any objection to a block for sockpuppetry, if justified. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way I was intending to block for this edit summary alone, and then saw your comment in the block log. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham meetup

See you there? Well... not here... this photo is from a pub in Manchester... but that's cos there haven't been enough meetups in Birmingham.
 Hi there! Did you know that there will be a meetup in Birmingham on the 15th of November?

There hasn't been many meetups in Birmingham. I will be passing through on the 15th of November, so I thought I would see who fancied meeting up, while I'm in the area. I'm leaving this message on your talk page because you have previously expressed an interest in a meetup in Birmingham or Coventry.

Yaris678 (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

policies, guidelines and suicide pacts

Re [3]. Actually WP:RS more or less is exactly that. You're thinking of WP:AGF, which is not a policy, just a guideline. An Encyclopedia stands or falls with reliable sources. WP:RS is a policy and a pillar. You don't want to follow RS, you're not writing an encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek  22:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Pings

You should have received two pings from my Talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Black Kite. Some input from you as to what's going on would be appreciated, publicly or you can e-mail me if you prefer. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, BK, after some more probing into this user's edits, I understand now why he doesn't like you. I don't need any additional input from you unless you think there's something I should know.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm still none the wiser. Did I AfD one of his articles, or close one, or something else? Black Kite (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You nominated Mimi Ikonn for deletion. Don't know if there are any others, but apparently that's enough to label you a sockmaster. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, right. Yeah, that came from a BLP/N notification, I think. I'd have chosen a better sock name than Zebras234 anyway :) Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!! Account creation

Thanks for your help Black Kite!! Excuse my ignorance, but can the other computers on this IP register now? or do I have to do it? The students are still getting the same IP notice. Isla Haddow (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


~

User:Playnot

Blocked as a sock of User:Simpleabd. [4] NativeForeigner Talk 10:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


Arbcom case request

Hi Black Kite, just wondering, why did you added Keilana and GorillaWarfare as party to the case request you filed recently? Are they directly related to Eric Corbett's block? Cheers! Jim Carter 20:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. Why would they be a party to the case about Eric Corbett's block? Neither of them were involved in the block. And there were other people interviewed for the story who were not included in the case. Could you remove there names as parties because I see no reason to tie up their time. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥

It looks like I might need to revisit the WMF gender gap mailing list. Not looked for a while. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Where were you a few years ago, when I was given a 1-month AE block :) GoodDay (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Statment length

Hi, Black Kite. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

If you wish to request an exemption to this limit you can do so on the case page or to the arbitration mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 10:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_60&oldid=1165661684"