User talk:Black Kite/Archive 61

Four years ago ...
"I think not"
	... you were recipient; no. 215 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

It is not understood why the the Wikipedia article was deleted without proper discussions. Marthoma Metran or Marthoma Metrapolitans of Malankara is a group of Christian bishops of the Church of st Thomas Christians in Malabar (Commonly called as Malankara CHURCH) in succession that believed to occupy the Malankara throne of apostolic see of st thomas. They are numbered as Marthoma I, Mar Thoma II etc Till Mar Thoma XXI. Because of the influence of Romans, Jacobites and anglican the monolithic church is now different fragments . The title of Marthoma is used ecclesiastically as "Marthoma " .Now the lineage of mARTHOMA mETRANS IS CONTINUED IN marthoma church a Malankara lineage church (where as in Jacobite they use maphrian and for orthodox they use Catholicosin addresing their primate) . hence it is requested to bring back the wiki page or retain the page and decide after discussionsIravikorthanan (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REsponse Awaiting

It is suggested to revert the deletion, The Copy right issues pointed happened is because of the edit made by a wiki editor Kokkrani. hence you may kindly revert to a pre edit version. This article is linked to a another set of article that detail Malankara church, St Thomas Christians and Marthoma Church. Hence deletion affets the completeness of those articlesIravikorthanan (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIM_Software

Hi, why have you deleted article AIM_Software, this company is very important worldwide, I think the delete action was performed by competing companies or paid actors. Please recover. ERDINC (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Zewail

I had a note to work on this article so it could go up on the recent deaths line. I hope to still get to it this week. I'll try and do that regardless of whether it will still be eligible for RD, but is there a time limit or deadline for that aspect? I'll ask at the talk page about the copyvio issues you raised. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Got distracted by Albert Einstein World Award of Science (Zewail was also awarded this). The four redlinks there shouldn't really be red, but I was particularly taken by the history around Niels Birbaumer. A stub created on 8 November 2010 that consisted of just an URL to de:Niels Birbaumer. Speedy deletion requested and it was deleted the same day (four hours later). A draft at Draft:Niels Birbaumer was created in October 2014, submitted to AFC in June 2016 and declined a day later. Looks to me like the draft is a machine translation of the German Wikipedia article. I think you like being given examples of that snafu? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done now. Will pop over to WP:ITN/C and see if it can go up. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Am rushing a bit, but as someone who wasn't around for the latter half of this discussion, would you be able to look over it and also look at the follow-up posts I have been making? See here, here, here and here. I may still be too close to all this to be objective, so when you get back and get the time, and if you are willing to give some thoughts on this, that would really help. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been on holiday, just got back today - I presume this is stale now. Apologies! Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, stale now. I may try to expand it x5 for DYK (will be tough) or take it to GA if I can get hold of the biography (I suspect scientific journals will also publish obituaries in due course and the NAS as well). Arabic language sources will be harder to handle, but if I can find someone to help with that, it would help. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I changed the wording of your close of an ANI discussion. some things are better not explictly linked to. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right to a defense from accusations

Having defending people from being treated uncivily on two occasions this year, I now face a counter accusation that I believe is unfounded, without any merit and can be reasonably be called ridiculous. Without waiting to hear both sides, a 3rd editor takes the accusation uncritically as valid. They make negative comments against my intentions and suggest blocking me. I prepare my written defence successfully, which takes time and effort. I seek confirmation from four people who have been affected. The 3rd editor curtails these attempts, because apparently the four people are biased. This is not true and against the policy of assuming good faith. They go to their talk page to revert my communications and he insists that I do not contact people. Any reasonable person can see this is a injustice, that would be recognised as such in any system of dispute or arbitration.

The rule about canvassing applies to communications to unaffected people. It is not canvassing to contact an affected person, who was a part of the activity that included incivility. In this case canvassing would would be to contact someone who has no independent contribution to make. That has not happened, nor would it be considered by any person with integrity.

Given that a higher principle is at issue, I cannot simply accept improper limitations on preparing a defence. Discussing this important matter has been prevented. The right thing to do is to go ahead and prepare a defence. If blocked for preparing a defence, then that would be a form of gross injustice, but sometimes following the principle is more important. Travelmite (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing does not only apply to unaffected people. Your messages were only sent to selected people and the message was biased. I suggest you read WP:CANVASS (especially the note on "campaigning" more carefully. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That assertion is incorrect. According to the page stats, six people contributed to 80% of a talk page discussion [1]. My accuser selects one of them. I selected the other three, so that everyone was informed. Yes, sometimes they opposed me and that's irrelevant. The same applies to the other page [2], I choose the main contributor Roberthall7 (+30%). Recent interactions with RobertHall7 were explaining how my accuser is correct about an inadequate reference, which he disagrees. These are just the facts. Travelmite (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening. Regardless of whether you think the other party is canvassing, you should not do it yourself. And your clearly biased message to them "User Pete/Skring has come off his block has made some ridiculous but serious accusations against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." instantly makes it canvassing anyway. If you had said something like "There is an issue at WP:ANI which you may wish to comment on", then that is an unbiased message. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening to you. I have also examined several other cases where this issue was raised in the past, to see how it affected various outcomes. It's mechanism to limit vote-stacking. What I hope I have shown is that's not intent here. Complying with black-letter rules is not an problem - if you know it. My conclusion that this is a trap for the unwary, both in law and the explanations on help pages, but I will discuss on other forums as appropriate. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Travelmite (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent block evasion

Hi. You recently blocked GaryFG8125 for making threats. He recently revealed on my talk page that he's a member of Fine Gael; this IP exhibits the same behaviour (as have several other IPs) and he now appears to be back again with a new account. Does this need to go through SPI or is a case of WP:DUCK? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GaryFG8125. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Banayan

Hello BlackKite,

I recently created the page Alex Banayan and it was tagged for speedy deletion- you have deleted the page. I purposefully created the page to establish notability and maintain a neutral tone, and it appears it was only deleted because it shared the same name as another page that had been deleted previously. This page was my own work, and I had no affiliation with any other previous page and I have never seen it. I am requesting help as I believe the deletion of the page should be contested, but I am not sure who or where I should contest it.

Thank you, Akonavi (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Akonavi[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Banayan (2nd nomination). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking

re special:diff/738500053 since NeilN just closed this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 7.

You quoted "pages that serve no other purpose ... than to disparage their subject"

The dispute I have with that interpretation is that my purpose in posting that redirect was not to disparage Adrian Neville, I greatly admire the man.

The purpose in doing so was to highlight a clever play on his nickname "The Man Who Gravity Forgot" by "Gorgeous" Tyler Breeze, a superficial heel.

When this was aired on NXT, you only see Neville in the first half of the segment. It then cuts to a closeup of Breeze saying this. Someone who only saw the end part of a clip like this without a clarifying description might not know who Breeze's soliloquy was rebutting.

For someone who only sees that phrase, the redirect helps people to understand who it was aimed at. It is not meant to disparage Neville, but to identify the target of Breeze's ire. Ranze (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-14

Can you protect the Mini-14 again. IP edit warrior is back.--RAF910 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Black Kite. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your block of Anngelo

Sorry about this, but as you didn't give him a block notice, and you blocked at around the time he stopped yesterday, I don't think he'll notice it. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes - I looked at the time and not the date. I did give him a block notice, but not a boilerplate one, so I'll upgrade that - if he carries on next time he logs in then we can extend it. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. 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. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration amendment request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Christianity and Sexuality and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Elizium23 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009)

I have noticed your closure of above discussion. I appreciate your thoughts, but I'm left with mixed feelings about it. Firstly, although the discussion ran for 20 days I still feel closing it was not due yet as the discussion was still fully going on. Multiple contributors stated their preference within 24 hours before your closure. Secondly, I feel that your assessment does not quite reflect the discussion. That all articles did not sufficiently fit the nomination wasn't even remotely the most important argument brought forward in the discussion. I think that there more than enough contributors in support of deletion to establish that the at the very least the nomination was suitable for all the articles. I'm hoping that you are prepared to reconsider your stance. If you should insist, is there any appropriate action regarding these articles you can advice me. After all, this discussion did not demonstrate a clear consensus to keep all of the articles, so I feel this should be reviewed further. T v x1 17:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can suggest is either DRV or re-nominating the articles individually. An AfD that has run for 20 days has had plenty of time for people to comment, and IMO there was certainly no consensus to delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam

Hey man, you didn't catch the blatent self-link spam on My Kind of Girl before you moved it to mainspace :P.--v/r - T P 03:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plip!

Ugh. That'll teach me to read an article even when it's an uncontentious G6 request from a trusted user. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of ManagerZone for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ManagerZone (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The1337gamer (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious AfD Close

Thank you for reclosing the AfD. I'm reasonably certain the initial AfD close was a paid job (possibly on a freelancing site). In fact, the article subject has the Wikipedia article link on their homepage. However, this is the first time I am encountering paid editors closing AfDs. That's a new low. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information, the subject of the article went to the dispute resolution noticeboard to request review of the AFD close. See: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Rniterjr.3B_Black_Kite.3B_Lemongirl942

First, the DRN request is very badly composed. That isn't the problem. I could have fixed that if it had been a proper request. Second, the filing party at DRN has a conflict of interest. That isn't the problem. Third, DRN is for article content disputes and isn't used when there is a specific alternate forum. I closed the request and advised the filer to go to deletion review. I think that you can expect to see the close taken to deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'm fully expecting that. There was nothing wrong with what you did at DRN. However, the evidence that five of the six Keep votes originated from the same place is fairly convincing. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am inferring that you are saying that there may have been sockpuppetry in the AFD. Unfortunately, I am never surprised when there is sockpuppetry in an AFD. Of course, that will be considered at DRV, and you and I agree that DRN is not the forum to rehash that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt

Hi Black Kite. Will you unsalt the title Ian Taylor (musician)? My intention is to move the article Ian Flannon Taylor to that title. Judging by the deletion log, I don't think there's much risk of the copyvio stuff being re-posted now, some 9 years later. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Done. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! --IllaZilla (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request

A case-amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality#Amendment request (October 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MidasHotel20

Thank you for restoring Mamushi to its original title by reverting the unexplained page move by MidasHotel20. Could you please review and respond to the followup about this editor on this ANI thread ? It is in the final subsection. Thanks. 85.255.233.137 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

Hi there. You wrote here that this issue isn't vandalism. An administrator has told this editor here: "The correct action on your part is to find a reliable source or discuss it on the Talk page. Instead, you decided to revert and tell them to go look it up." Isn't this gaming the system? This editor and I edit a lot of the same articles, and I'm trying hard to keep the articles properly sourced. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely they're in the wrong, but AIV is strictly for pure vandalism so it wasn't the right place to report it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppet

You recently blocked the user PoohBearFan, but I am curious if there is enough behavioural evidence to suggest they are a sock of long-term abuser Bambifan101. What do you think? --Drm310 (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible returning block evader

One of the newer recalcitrant block evaders, possibly starting off again? Seems to fit the M.O. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I've sent you an email. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent it onwards to those who can deal with it better than me. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]