User talk:Black Kite/Archive08

[edit] User talk:Pyrox24

Heh. Well seen. Strength through numbers, eh? Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted article "Risk/reward cycle"

I do not understand the deletion of this article. It was not specific to gaming, as the delete note seems to indicate, and even if it was, there are many gaming-specific article on wikipedia. It was also sourced and documented a relevant analytical term. Miqademus (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Seanstickywiki

Thank you, thank you - this vandal was seriously ****ing me off. Just 'cause there aren't many people doing vandal watch at the moment, made him think that I was stalking him! Well, after those early bits of vandalism, I was... anyway, thanks for stopping him. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Clowcards

I disagree with your revision on the following grounds.

3(a) Applies to individual images, not to individual pages. A single image used only once on a page where there are many other images is still a single image used only once. You can only apply 3(a) in cases where a single image is used multiple times and then only if the majority of those times can be determined to be decorative.

8

• Animation and comic books are an intrinsically visual medium, their look and style is used in the same way as descriptive text is in a novel. Therefore an image is a basic requirement for the reader to gain an understanding of the character.

• The specific characters are anthropomorphic personifications of natural elements or abstract concepts. Their visual representation is a key part of who and what they are. I you do not allow a reader whom is unfamiliar with the topic see this then they will be unable to gain a full and complete understanding of the character because they will be unable to fully appreciate intent with which the artist created them. In brief, the characters' visual appearance is an indelible part of the character and must be seen to be understood.

FU allows the use of images where there are important for the readers understanding. These images are therefore permissible under FU.

"If the individual cards were notable enough to have their own articles then the FU images would probably be unremarkable, but they're not"

Individual notability is not part of FU criteria, only inclusion criteria and the Clow Cards are notable as a group, this mans that they are eligible to have FU images. President has already been set that multiple images may be used on pages with multiple characters who are not individually notable. For example List of recurring characters from The Simpsons, List of staff at South Park Elementary.

"over 100 fair use images in a single article is not tenable"

When you consider that the page deals with 50+ individual characters, 100 images suddenly doesn't sound so much, does it.

How about 1 image per character?

In the mean time, I hope that you will appreciate that an orphaned FU image will be automatically deleted, likely before consensus is reached.

perfectblue (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FU 8

Sorry, but I disagree. This page covers 50+ INDIVIDUAL characters. Therefore 8 should be applied per character, not per pages.

How about 1 image per character? That would reduce the number of images by half and still provide the reader with a full understanding of the characters.

Please do not orphan these images until something has been worked out.

perfectblue (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jock Horror Deletion

Sometime over the last few months, a page about Jock Horror was deleted. I don't understand the reasoning for this, and I don't believe the f2 genetics are grounds enough for deletion. Please tell me why it was deleted and if it can be restored. Thank you very much.

x-tra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisystole (talk • contribs) 05:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ip block regarding Campus Watch

Your notice on the ip's talkpage says it is an indef block (which of course we don't do for ip addresses) whereas the blocklog says "31 hours" - much more appropriate. Perhaps you would like to correct your typo? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays

[edit] Question for you

Have you examined in depth SqueakBox's "contributions" to the Sanger article, and now to every article that dares call Sanger a "co-founder" of WP, or add "co-" to "founder" in Wales-related articles? He is being disruptive, acting against consensus, and editing to make a point. The verifiable sources do not support his position, and he inserts it anyway. Reverting his mass edits is time-consuming, and (in my opinion, anyways) does not constitute "stalking" as he claims, and you seem to have affirmed with your temporary block of Bramlet. I'm just looking for guidance and clarification regarding your view on SB's participation in this disagreement. Mr Which??? 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea of whether Bramlet actually is an SPA. I do know that he's on the side of angels, so-to-speak in this case. There's been extensive discussion at the Sanger talkpage, and SB has presented no evidence to show that the reliable sources calling Sanger "co-founder" should not be trusted. Yet he goes on a project-wide campaign to remove "co-" from all the Wales-related articles, and "co-founder" from all the Sanger-related articles? That's what confused me about the block of Bramlet. It was SqueakBox who was being disruptive, not Bramlet. Check out the Sanger talkpage for more evidence. SB has been given reliable source after reliable source, and he ignores them all. Mr Which??? 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All I was looking at was the sources. It is utterly verifiable that Sanger is the co-founder of WP. It is not verifiable that he is not the co-founder. The only one who claims this is Wales. That's fine, and should be noted, but it should not mean that referring to Sanger as "co-founder", which is verifiable, in the lead is proscribed simply because SqueakBox thinks it should be. I have seen no one make any sort of convincing argument for SB's position. His NPOV argument strains credulity, as there would seem to be more NPOV issues with removing the descriptor per only Wales' objections. Mr Which??? 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is quite easy, actually. Simply googling the issue will result in multiple reliable sources calling Sanger "co-founder", which invalidates SqueakBox's claims to the contrary. There are also multiple primary sources that refer to him as such. I'm still trying to figure out why it's such a major malfunction, other than that Wales apparently thinks very lowly of Sanger, and doesn't want him referred to as such. Reliable sources refer to Wales disputing Sanger's status, but they do not actually dispute it themselves. Mr Which??? 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be completely missing something, but, from what I can tell at the Sanger article, consensus seems clearly against SqueakBox, as do the reliable sources. I haven't looked into the talkpages of the articles where he mass-removed the descriptor, but that's my take on the Sanger article anyways. Mr Which??? 20:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gladys Knight

Part of the Honor to Gladys Knight was recognizing her as Empress of Soul as well as presenting her with the Ella Award. Also, in other awards the name of the bestower is part of the award; for example the Soultrain Award, the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and it should be included at first glance and not through a link to someone's review of the evening. Just because Kleopatra Girl, who wrote an excellent review of the evening, used the word "touted" doesn't diminish the fact that during the presentation the Society said that we recognize Gladys Knight as the Empress of Soul" and present to her the 16th Annual Ella Award. The reader can weigh the significance of the Society of Singers' doing the presen tation, but you diminish the fact with your revision. I, respectfully, ask that you allow it to stay as I revise it. Additionally, your revision renders ineffective feeds to specific blogs and search engines.

[edit] my page

Please don't delete any more content from my page. I am currently in the process of revising the sections I have there with another administrator (DGG). Those pieces represent several months of editing and I keep there there as drafts which receive REGULAR edits, as shown by the page history. They are there TEMPORARILY. I believe this should satisfy you inquiry, and I do not expect you to make any more deletions to my workspace. thank you.

[edit] Mini-sub Takes a Dive in the Dead Sea

Hey . BLACKKITE . First of all “Happy Holidays” to you and yours. Regarding the deletion of the article Mini-sub Takes a Dive in the Dead Sea I would like to take you up on the offer to providing the deleted text. If you just post it to my discussion page, I’ll rework it an merge into one of the other articles. Once again Happy Holidays and thanks for your help. Shoessss |  Chat  01:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and again Happy Holidays. Shoessss |  Chat  01:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REQUEST TO START A DISCUSSION A PUT TO A VOTE

Whether you agree with the Society of Singers of not, part of their program was declaring Gladys the Empress of Soul and presenting her with the Ella Award. Your seemingly personal interest in diminishing the honor bestowed upon Gladys by continuing to change "declared" to "called" may be an abuse of your authority. but you certainly have notvcited any wikipedia standard, rule or guideline to support your position. i am requesting that you leave my revision as is until which time the matter is discussed and voted upon!{helpme}Comprendo (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sydlexia.com

Black Kite,

This is in response to the deletion of Sydlexia.com.

You can see some of the conversation between Wildthing61476 and myself in our talk logs:

User_talk:Wildthing61476 User_talk:Bkazdan

I think that you should reconsider Sydlexia.com's page remaining up. Bkazdan (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ibaranoff24

I've asked more questions. I thought you may want to read his answers. The Transhumanist 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minlo EP

Could you delete Minlo EP, too? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 01:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sydlexia.com

Is there a way for me to get back the content from Sydlexia.com that was written so that I can modify it to meet the standards that Wikipedia requires? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkazdan (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Doctorate

Wiki Doctorate is a new scheme designed to recognise the people who "do all the work" on Wikipedia. It has been mainly developed for Wikipedia administrators however if you have done lots to keep Wikipedia on "the straight and narrow", including being members of different groups which help Wikipedia i.e "The Welcoming Committee. We have selected to email you because you can apply for the doctorate and we would be very grateful if you did and put the userbox on your user page to boost advertising. The following link will take you straight to our homepage.

Yours sincerely

--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upper confidence bounds applied to trees

Hello,

I'm trying to figure out why you deleted the article on the UCT algorithm (Upper Confidence bounds applied to Trees). Was there nothing there? I observe that algorithms like SSS* and MTD-f have wikipedia pages, so it couldn't be notability?

UCT is the search algorithm currently in use by the strongest Go playing programs. It was introduced only in 2006 in a paper by Levente Kocsis and Csaba Szepesvari ("Bandit based Monte Carlo planning"), but because it was so successful so fast in computer Go^[1], I think it has proved itself as a notable game tree search algorithm.

Vintermann (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Thai AfD

hi, don't you think that starting an AfD 3 weeks after the previous one was finished is a bit too premature? On the other hand I do admit that the previous poll involved a minimal number of voters and thus probably should have been extended as unresolved then... Pundit|utter 15:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup

Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 46 support, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thanks for supporting me!

-Djsasso (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

Dear Black Kite, Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 34 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. I appreciate your support! I promise I will wield the mop wisely, and do my best to improve Wikipedia.

-- AKeen (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Thai

I noticed you a couple of weeks you closed the AfD for the article that Chocolate Thai has been nominated again for deletion. There is also a current RfC on the sources. Pundit|utter 15:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CandleJaque

If I may be so daring, I would continue this friendly banter on my talk page. Or would this be too much to ask? CandleJaque (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

hey, You un blocked me so i could change my username, i never got the chance because User:Rlevse blocked me again thinking my username was User:Lil' kim, but it wasn't it's User:Lil' kim187 accusing me of just adding 187 on the end, i'm sorry to bother you but please i need your help. User_talk:Lil' kim187 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.15.12 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry nevermind he/she un blocked it, sorry to bother you. but thank you so much for before :-) User:Lil' kim187 well hopefully it'll be Sunshine89 now. —Preceding comment was added at 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bionicle Articles

I would love to just prod them but they would be contested. I can't even tags the articles without getting in an edit war. Ridernyc (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some help with an IP

A while ago I reported this IP at the admin noticeboard for being disruptive on Post-credits scene. You responed to it, so I figured it's best to report his continued misbehavior to you. He's also been inserting unconfirmed information or straight-out falsehoods on other articles, and has already been blocked once for it. He drops off the map for days at a time, so I'm not sure that simply reporting him will accomplish anything. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

On this edit, when you say other "discrete users", what do you mean? The various anon IP edits? Or logged in editors known to edit from this IP? Lawrence Cohen 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. Yeah, I want to AGF on that as well, just in case. Lawrence Cohen 00:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can, check your email? Had a question. Lawrence Cohen 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] flag of Northern Ireland

Thank you for notice that you have protected this article, I don't understand why you felt the need to do as I only edited it once on the 9th to revert a badly written and spelt addition, also the text added is POV and the opinion of the editor that added it.--Padraig (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Northern Ireland

I am a little puzzled as to why you did this. If Vk has reverted my referenced edit, then you would have had reason, but as it was, there was no particular problemTraditional unionist (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TuneDNA

Dear Black Kite, I am writing to ask for more information on the recent suppression of the second TuneDNA article. The tag indicates the previous article was recreated unchanged (recreation of deleted material), when in fact it was completely rewritten by a different person (although formated by the same). If the article is still consider bellow wikipedia quality standards, could you please indicate what needs to be inproved to reach them? Sincerely,

mickrjk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickrjk (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anon IPs editwarring

See [1] these two anon IP are edit warring - same editor - by changing the image on this and two other templates, they have made 5 reverts on this one and I left a warning on his talkpage asking him to self revert which he has ignored, the issue is being discussed here. Could you semi-protect the templates to prevent anon IP from edit warring on this without consensus for change.--Padraig (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The first IP was warned here by another admin, so he is now using the second IP address, I believe this is a established editor gaming the system to edit war.--Padraig (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: TuneDNA

Thanks for the tip! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickrjk (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)