User talk:Black Kite/Archive 90
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Black Kite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Rita Ora discography
I'm really disappointed with the way the issue with the article was handled. Instead of reverting the persistent disruptive editing from a user whose edits have been reverted by several other editors, all his edits were left intact and the article was locked. How is that fair? The user who acts as if he owns the article and pretty much threatens other editors is being rewarded for this behavior? Helptottt (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is a standard response to protect an article to stop an edit-war. Admins can take no view over which is the "right" version to protect the article in. See The Wrong Version. Black Kite (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The user that does the actual edit warring on this article has not only altered a well-sourced and well-written article (that needed minimal changes), he has also personally attacked me. The user falsely accused me of "constantly being reverted by other editors for my disruptions" on this article and also accused me of making a new account. The user has a history of vindictive behavior towards other editors on this site. Despite listing a multitude of issues with the article on its talk page, the user, again, accuses me of "edit warring and continual disruption." Are editors supposed to completely refrain from editing this article and pointing out the bad editing, and just leave laof2017 to edit however he wants? Helptottt (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- It takes two (or more) to edit-war. Given that two of the users that were edit-warring against laof2017 have turned out to be sockpuppets, I'm even more sure now that protecting the article was the right decision. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I know that Swedishbrittisk was blocked, but who's the other sockpuppet (that was editing on that specific article)? Can you, please, advise what I should do re: laof2017's accusatory and demeaning remarks towards me? Helptottt (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- It takes two (or more) to edit-war. Given that two of the users that were edit-warring against laof2017 have turned out to be sockpuppets, I'm even more sure now that protecting the article was the right decision. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The user that does the actual edit warring on this article has not only altered a well-sourced and well-written article (that needed minimal changes), he has also personally attacked me. The user falsely accused me of "constantly being reverted by other editors for my disruptions" on this article and also accused me of making a new account. The user has a history of vindictive behavior towards other editors on this site. Despite listing a multitude of issues with the article on its talk page, the user, again, accuses me of "edit warring and continual disruption." Are editors supposed to completely refrain from editing this article and pointing out the bad editing, and just leave laof2017 to edit however he wants? Helptottt (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your good work Andreš 19:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
RS Noticeboard
Good afternoon sir, I was wondering if you would comment in this discussion because there are three users who are friends that are literally attempting to deprecate a source that is recommended as reliable on the library websites of Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, Yale, Princeton etc https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Association_of_Religion_Data_Archives_and_World_Religion_Database Foorgood (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Rita Ora discography
Hey @Black Kite hope you're well. Unfortunately, edit warring on the article is continuing. Helptottt is persistently removing reliable sourced content, despite notifications and the ongoing discussion on the talkpage. He's is extremely tendentious and ignoring almost every comment on the talkpage. I thought that we had actually found a solution following the article's protection, but it seems that his purpose is still to continue with it. Are you able to do something I also filled a report here: [1]? Thanks in advance! Iaof2017 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
194.81.239.181 Block
Thanks. scope_creepTalk 15:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Children's TV vandal is back, yet again
See https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=American_Dragon:_Jake_Long&diff=prev&oldid=1121873729 . Edderiofer (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- And again at 2601:603:207f::/48. Edderiofer (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Wilko Johnson
On 26 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Wilko Johnson, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. āBagumba (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Vandalizm?
Ä°yi misiniz? GenƧliÄinde bir dolu katkı yapan 10 yıldır belki bir edit yapmayan birini vandalizmle suƧlayıp, hesabını bloklamak nedir allah aÅkına? Parolamı bile hatırlamıyorum. Bƶyle mail geldiÄi iƧin yazıyorum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1126836817
devrimdpt 85.106.223.53 (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Katkılarınız, gerƧekten de yakın zamanda baÅka bir kullanıcıyı rahatsız eden bir dizi katkı yaptıÄınızı gƶsteriyor. Engelleme bildiriminizi dĆ¼zelttim. Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
T-ban?
Hi, regarding this [2], would you mind explaining why you think I deserve a topic-ban? I don't remember if we've interacted in the past, but I might have forgotten something. Are you well informed about my editing in the EE area? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Greeks
Hello. I appreciate the raising of the article protection at Greeks, but letting the following edit [3] which violates WP:NPOV and goes against the long-standing WP:CONSENSUS as it reflects the Albanian communist regime's ethnic oppression of minorities in the country, stay on the article for too long (from 9 December, until 16 of the month, literally, a full week) is a tad too much even for Wikipedia's standards. Even though page protection doesn't serve as an endorsement of the debated edits, it is the duration of the protection the problem here since it lets a misleading info stay for too long on the article. Can you please check the talk page discussion at Greeks and revert the problematic edit to the stable revision by Werg57 as of 17:44, 9 December 2022? That will be really appreciated. Thank you. - ā SilentResident ā (talk ā | contribs ā) 12:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- The particular edit doesn't violate WP:NPOV by default and it is the result of temporary compromise by at least two editors. I would propose a different version than the one which is live right now, but in any case no version of any article is the "right version" which admins should protect. Black Kite protected the article in order to protect the integrity of the project towards readers and this is unrelated to content disputes. I think that @SilentResident: should engage on the talkpage in a manner which promotes consensus building. Comments which call edits by FierakuiVĆ«rtet WP:PROPAGANDA[4] don't help consensus building.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your intervention to defend an POV warrior who breached 3RR, and calling this 3RR breach a "temporary compromise" even though it was done without giving time for a consensus to be reached in the talk page with the participation of third party editors, shows, that you do not understand the concept of WP:CONSENSUS. If I were you, I wouldn't go down that path. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:FIVEPILLARS and refrain from encouraging POV warriors by calling the outcome of their edit war behavior a "temporary compromise" for which the talk page shows its far from being in compliance with Wikipedia's rules, and especially WP:RS. Good day. --- ā SilentResident ā (talk ā | contribs ā) 16:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately I am unable to restore a previous revision after protection unless there is a very obvious problem such as a BLP violation. Many years ago, this was written which describes the situation in a possibly inappropriately humourous way. It does have a serious subtext, though, in that the "Right" version should be determined through talkpage discussion, and that version restored after the protection expires. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your intervention to defend an POV warrior who breached 3RR, and calling this 3RR breach a "temporary compromise" even though it was done without giving time for a consensus to be reached in the talk page with the participation of third party editors, shows, that you do not understand the concept of WP:CONSENSUS. If I were you, I wouldn't go down that path. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:FIVEPILLARS and refrain from encouraging POV warriors by calling the outcome of their edit war behavior a "temporary compromise" for which the talk page shows its far from being in compliance with Wikipedia's rules, and especially WP:RS. Good day. --- ā SilentResident ā (talk ā | contribs ā) 16:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Martin Duffy
On 21 December 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Martin Duffy, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Merry!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023! |
|
Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. |
- Thank you! Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Black Kite!
Black Kite,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
ā Moops ā Tā” 17:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Ā Ā Ā Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
ā Moops ā Tā” 17:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)