User talk:Black Kite/Archive09

[edit] re: TuneDNA

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

[edit] anon IPs editwarring

he has reverted you and here.--Padraig (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Have to say I prefer your stubbed version of the wording.--Padraig (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your friend is back again and here and here and still no input on any of the talk pages for these changes.--Padraig (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Sent one on the Pixelface issue. Kinda mooted though. Will ^(talk) 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Troubles

Bear in mind that the case itself was the warning for those users listed as parties; both Padraig and Traditional unionist were parties so, per the terms of the remedy, there's no need for any final warnings for them before they are put on revert probation. --bainer (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

Black Kite, you said "Earlier today, User:Tim Q. Wells unilaterally reverted every single Scrubs episode article so that they are now individual articles. I have thus added his name to this RFAR as an involved party." I seriously don't think you know what the word "unilaterally" means or what consensus means. There is no consensus for the Scrubs episode articles to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. To say that he "unilaterally" reverted every single Scrubs episode article is ridiculous. Feel free to add yourself to the arbitration case as well, because you threatened to block me and later personally attacked me by accusing me of stalking. You can add yourself as an involved party to the request for arbitration or I'll add your name for you. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

You have been named as an involved party in a request for arbitration. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#The Television Episodes Edit Wars. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

I have no clue why your page is on my watchlist, but I was shocked by the user name. I was just about to write you a fairly impolite note about the word "Kike" when I realized you were vandalized. Whew. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:71.99.139.118

What is up here?!?

I make a post on the New England Patriots Strategy page documenting the well known and admited practice of cheating, and Pats1 reverts the post and claims that I am vandalizing the page.

I make a post on the New England Patriots Season page, referencing the cheating, and Pats1 again reverts the post and claims that I am vandalizing the page.

I make a post on the New England Patriots Discussion page, stating that I felt it irresponsible not to mention the cheating, and once again Pats1 reverts the post and claims that I am vandalizing the page.

I make a post on Pats1's Discussion page, asking why he refuses to address the known and admited cheating, and Pats1 reverts the post and claims that I am vandalizing the page.

I make a followup post suggesting that Pats1 read the definition of vandalism instead of misusing the term. At this point I am upset and call him an asshole, because that is how he is acting. He responds by claiming harassment, when it is Pats1 that is harassing my by claiming that anything I do is vandalism.

I ask for a review of the block, which is rejected (apparently without even checking the post history) because I didn't provide any information. I revert the rejection to supply some additional information, and later I see that the identical rejection notice is back. I revert to attempt to provide more information and again the original rejection notice is back. After a couple of times trying to supply some additional information I get blocked for abusing the revert feature. WTF?!? How can I provide the requested information!!! 71.99.139.118 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Politics of Northern Ireland}} and User talk:86.157.196.37

Heya :) You probably shouldn't have blocked yourself, I agree this editor was edit warring, but since it is not "vandalism" and not a blatant 3RR vio, you should probably have asked someone else to have a look and take appropriate measures (may it be (full) protection or block). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Thanks for granting me rollback AdamSmithee (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re user talk:homy

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFR - thanks...

Hi—just to say thanks for granting me use of Rollback. ^talkGiler 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm the guy who was talking about deleting an account...

I posted this in the other place, but wasn't sure if I was doing it right so I thought I'd do it here. This is the account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cjwillwin

Yeah I just want to end the account. Thanks for being so helpful =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.88.239 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

- For reverting the user page vandalism :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Number48

This user has accused a couple of us of vandalism, here and here. Kind of silly, if you ask me. In any case, you were dealing with this individual on their user page issue, so if you can politely or impolitely smack them about, I'd be most appreciative. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DRV/Jan 23

Re. [2], you may need to correct the stats, that was the user's fifth edit. Regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An ugly timeline : not quite a wheelwar, but close

I know people hate the episode crap on ANI, so I don't know what to do with this. I really didn't like the way this played out. Not the kind of cooperative adminship that I think people aim for. I especially dislike the final act, where PeaceNT goes to a protected article and reverts it to her preferred version. I'd like advice on where, if anywhere, I should report this.

The trigger was Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special. This is one of the articles the VivianDarkbloom has strenuously objected to the redirect of, claiming that it is notable. In fairness, it probably is, because it received 3 Emmy nominations. The article is notable only for being an overly long plot summary with trivia, and no one seems to care enough to fix it.

So, today, she made a revert at 22:53, 23 January 2008, falsely accusing me of having vandalised the article.

• TTN restores the redirect.
• 23:21, 23 January 2008 VivianDarkbloom reverts, falsely accusing TTN of vandalism
• Vivian requests page protection
• Jmlk17 denies request
• I restore the redirect
• I comment about the protection
• 23:28, 23 January 2008 Vivian reverts again, another false vandalism accusation
• I restore redirect
• 01:33, 24 January 2008 Vivian's fourth revert, fourth false accusation of vandalism
• I start working on 3RR violation report
• TTN restores the redirect
• East718 overrides Jmlk17, and protects the page

• Note that there had been further activity, so this might not really be an override

• Vivian files ANI report against TTN and I
• I finally get the editing done on the 3RR report
• Vivian blocked by TigerShark
• PeaceNT edits a protected article, and sets it to her preferred version

Kww (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of National Hockey League statistical leaders by country

Personally I still prefer two seperate sections Republic of Ireland and Norhern Ireland, as I've argued before - the whole of Ireland was a part of the UK 1801-1920's & Northern Ireland continues as a part of the UK. ONIH (even at his personal page) objects to Belfast, United Kingdom - why can't he accept that Northern Ireland was & is still a part of the UK? Whatever the result though, I'll accept. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I give a reason on the talk page before I reverted that POV nonsense.--Padraig (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Obtaining consensus is done on the talk page, not by inserting POV and then asking hows that, nothing should be added until consensus is achieved first.--Padraig (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we keep this to the article talk page, it was neutral when it linked to Ireland the island article.--Padraig (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't I accept "Belfast, United Kingdom"? Simple, the mere suggestion of it shows ignorance of contemporary usage. Have a look here where a wide spectrum of editors with an interest in Irish articles discuss it. Selected comments:

• Similarly, people born in Ireland pre-1921 were generally and have generally been referred to as Irish. To describe these people as having been born in the UK would represent an entirely new and unprecidented development in encyclopaedic conventions, and a most unwelcome experiment in my opinion.
• When I was a kid members of my grandparents generation were all entitled to British citizenship if born pre-1922. Hardly anyone availed of that and the very idea that they or their kinfolk would have described themselves as "British" in the early 1900s is laughable.
• As others have said, while technically correct the terminology of UK wasn't really used back in those good ole days.
• Use of the terms British and United Kingdom, as we understand them today, are quite new and, though technically correct, would not be exteded so casually to Ireland pre-1922.

As I have repeatedly said, please learn history and don't attempt to re-write it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Once more ONIH, 1801-1920's United Kingdom of Great Britan AND Ireland later United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for advice

I wonder if you have anything you could offer here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Recent Block of Vk by SirFozzie. Rockpocket 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for semi-protecting the List of hooligan firms article. I had brought this up with another admin about possibly semi-protecting. The blocked user who is doing all this seems to have created about 8 accounts. And I am as I said discussing it with a view to action being taken. Thanks again though!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above I have initiated a discussion at WP:ANI#List of hooligan firms which you may wish to add to. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:One Night In Hackney

Can you please help? The above user has accused me falsely of being a sockpuppet and rv all my edits today. I filed a complaint at the Noticeboard which has yet to be responded to.

Thanks. 70.18.18.193 (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And....? Am I presumed guilty rather than innocent because I am using a rental computer since I can't afford Verizon, RCN or Time Warner. I'm on disability and make little enough without wasting my time and money making edits which someone else reverts. Don't you feel you should be fair and review my edits and give a conclusive judgment rather than relying on someone else's judgments? 70.18.18.193 (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've asked two admins with ample experience of this abusive banned sockpuppeteer to confirm I'm correct. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Quack! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] you might want to consider

[3]--Filll (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

[edit] Regarding Top 10 characters pages

So, having come back to most of my work uploading character images being deleted (rightfully so in some cases), I've learned through research that it isn't just an issue off Non-free use rational templates, but that List of characters... pages are being attacked as belonging on Wikipedia as a general rule. The small portion of the discussion I was able to read (mostly the table listing the two sides of the argument) has lead me to believe there is still no uniform decision on policy for such pages on Wikipedia. As a clear policy against character pages would stop me from continuing my current contributions to these pages, I ask for some official word on adding pictures to construct a Character's from... article. Thank you. Cybertooth85 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi - as far as "official word" goes, the guideline you probably want to look at is this one.

Right, I've read over that, but the only contention I see being raised is 3(a) arguing for the smallest number of non-free images being used as possible. My argument is that since no other website shows what all (not some) of these characters look like, having pictures beside each brief character entry is of importance. As you say, I can't find more "official" word, but I'm trying to re-upload scanned images of each character from my copies of Top 10, cite the article they're in (it's only the one, and each pic is only used once) and be done with it. I guess I'm asking if I fill out rationale templates for each character pic, will my work stand or will it be removed again? Thanks for your help. Cybertooth85 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If you want to follow up on PeaceNT's request for evidence

I would suggest this. An admin arguing that we shouldn't take WP:V literally, and that third-party sources aren't necessary.Kww (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.249.204.87 and Cabal Case

Heya, im the mediator for the above case, the IP you blocked for a month was involved in this case, as i had been expecting, i think his IP has changed to the new above IP who's edits you reverted here on the 25th January. You wish to consider doing another month block. Seddon69 (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which was unsuccessful with 19 support, 18 oppose, and 5 neutral. I have signed up for admin coaching and will retry later on in a couple more months.

- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chumley Huffington and others

• I'd like to have a shot at listifying these articles. Give me some time and I'll do it. JuJube (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV vandal

Hey Black Kite, I noticed that you put a warning about POV edits on the talk page of AlbertEinstein'sGhost. I just threw a warning on his talk page for this edit. He's ignoring us. Usually, I don't complain about POV edits from anonymous editors and known POV-warriors, but this one isn't even pretending to pay attention. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gladiator protect

I'm just curious why it was deemed appropriate to protect the Gladiator page for the next 6 months. I understand there has been vandalism, but a 6 month lock-out seems a bit excessive... FusionKnight (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King of Mann pretender section

I ask you to reconsider. This will be an issue in the coming days. It may seem minor to you now, particularly if you have no reference to the recent past and the previous biography dispute about me. I can tell you that this is only going to continue. I do not have the time nor interest to be personally involved so I am asking you to please reconsider given the recent history and disputes on Wikipedia that have I have had with my biographical information.--Kingofmann (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi a few?

Please see my request at WP:RFPP and consider acting on them. Anons are harassing my edits; this is User:Grawp aka the D&D vandal. Watch for vandalism to the RFPP page itself. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; just in time, too — my sandwich just arrived! Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, again. I just noticed that he's been abusing your user page; sorry --Jack Merridew 10:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have another batch listed at RFPP. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re User:202.95.200.17 reported at AIV

Hmmmm... while you were removing the report from AIV I was blocking the editor for 3 months as a unreconstructed edit warrior; they return to their non-consensual contributions as soon as their blocks expire. I would welcome your thoughts on this matter, and whether you think my block should be reviewed at WP:ANI. If you wish to vary or unblock then please do so. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. From what I see the editor contributes what they believe to be the correct information - unfortunately they are so convinced they are right they disregard all other editors questions or queries. I really hope that they use the unblock request so they can be made to recognise the importance of consensus and collaborative editing. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Welshleprechaun

Hi there. I'm a bit concerned about this block; I was edit-conflicted twice while trying to post my view that the dispute between this editor and the IP was a content issue, and not vandalism. It appears more like a long-standing feud between the editor and the IP that's been to AN and ANI a couple of times - I was intending to suggest dispute resolution. Did you see some vandalism occurring there that was actually block-worthy? Just trying to see the reasoning. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't noticed the 3RR, good call; maybe they'll look into other ways to solve the dispute after this. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] encyclopedia metallum

I'm always looking for verifiable sources and confirmation of notability. How'd you find this? When I'm looking, should I just go to the site, or would a Google search find it? Thanks, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working Group login

Hi Black Kite, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Looking forward to working with you as a fellow group member! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass AfD nominations of Sheridan College-affiliated people

Hi Black Kite. This got my attention, and kept me quite busy for a few days trying to research references. I am curious—what was the evidence of "huge swathes" of conflict of interest to which you referred here? Thanks, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much good came of it. Some non-notables got deleted and others got some much-needed attention to sourcing. Who is this IP with COI? I hadn't noticed a particular contributor in common for these articles. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

[edit] bio details

hello:

I'm reading the discussion regarding the notability of an article.

Concerning "Linda Bel" and her wikipedia credits on Shrek, Shrek2 and Madagascar. I am the Head of Character Animation on "Madagascar" and "Madagascar: The Crate Escape" and I can testify that Linda was not credited as "Lead Animator" on any of the three PDI/DreamWorks films listed. Her credits should read "Animator" as she has not had any supervisorial role on the three films.

Yours,

Rex Grignon Head of Character Animation PDI/DreamWorks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgrignon (talk • contribs) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Millionaire Matchmaker

Hi. At the very least, this "article" is a nearly empty A1 speedy which was placed by a user with a really questionable edit history. Just because the show exists doesn't mean that this is a suitable article. In fact, I stand by my original assertion that the content is near-gibberish and I don't want to waste anyone's time by running it up on AfD. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Before he/she put the taxobox on it, it really was gibberish. Almost no context. In fact, the taxobox is probably what saved it. I've taken the liberty of adding some cleanup notices instead. Odds are, this editor isn't going to be the one to expand it based on that edit history. Oh, well. Thanks for the help. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)