User talk:Black Kite/Archive12

User

Talk

Contribs

Email

Tools

Articles

Welcome. I am an administrator
on the English Wikipedia.^{Link to RfA}

Talk Page archives: 01-02-03-04-05-06-07-08-09-10-11-12
To leave me a message, click here

Messages start here

My concerns regarding the Corvette Leaf Spring article

In response to user Springee who has consistently blanked my edits. As you know his reasons for censoring me are that the article may contain a one word typo and that there isnt a 'good enough explanation' as to why the magazine author(s) feels the way they do.

This particular article deals with springs on a car. And springs have a huge impact on handling and ride. Two aspects which are inherently subjective; they cannot be quantified with figures. Hence any article on the matter must be subjective.

Motor Trend magazine is a hugely credible source on all topics automotive. And the only source to counter them in this Wikipedia article is one man's unprofessional and personal opinion.

Deleting a credible point of view is not the scientific way. I feel this goes against the foundation of learning and knowledge, not to mention Wikipedia's credibility and goals.

Any encyclopedia is but a branch of learning, and learning is the product of education. Shouldn't Wikipedia present all legitimate and professional aspects of a subject to allow the reader to make his/her own judgements?

Springee claims to be one of the original writers of this piece and it really is biased towards the advantages of the Corvette leaf spring. Reading it impartially gives me the sense of propaganda. Something that others users have noted as well at the bottom of the discussion page.

I ask that you take some sort of action against this user. Or at least fold it into the Leaf Spring article since much of it is redundant.

Thank you --Autostream (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the Corvette Leaf Spring article

Perhaps you can help me. I have been removing a section added by Autostream. The section in question is a reference to an opinion piece published in Motor Trend magazine. The opinion is regarding the ride and handling of the Corvette. The issue is that the opinion piece claims the ride and handling issues (an opinion in and of its self) is due to the use of the leaf spring. This may or may not be true.

The problem with the article is it does not offer any explanation WHY they think the leaf spring would cause the ride and handling issues.

Furthermore the MT article contains factual errors which would call into question the credibility of the author’s opinion. The article says the spring is made from carbon fiber. It is actually made from fiber-glass. The article states that the spring is rigidly connected to the wheels (presumably meaning the uprights) at both ends. This is incorrect. The spring is connected at either end via a link.

I am considering creating an illustrative CAD model to illustrate the mechanism and further dispel the miss conceptions about this suspension design. I originally published this article (as part of the Corvette entry) to clear up just these sorts of misconceptions.

So why am I writing you? Well Autostream has accused me of vandalizing the entry and threatened to block my IP addresses (home and work) from further edits. I do not know the best way to prevent him from adding further misinformation or trying to band me for “vandalizing” an entry simply for removing an opinion section he/she has added.

Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.220.51 (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created an account just in case, Springee .....

The usual

Sign, Bengio. I feel like banging my head on a proverbial brick wall. He is back doing it again using that same "non-source" for the "QPR Youth Wing". He clearly reads messages left for him and I thought I had finally after all these months got through to him about adding a correct source that names the firm as he added a different source from a book and added a different name for them. But since then he has yet again reverted to type and has now added it at least three or four times again using that "non-source" (for want of a much better expression!). It has been removed each time by jimboline and I have just done so. Any chance you could have a look again? Sorry to ask yet again.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Obuibo Mbstpo

Could you explain your block of this user here? I don't intend to suggest that it was a bad block, but I think a lot of us would appreciate an explanation for it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The block notice says, essentially, blocked for repeated vandalism. There was one edit that could be considered vandalism, the edit to Marriage proposal. No others of which I'm aware. Normally, there are warnings before block, and block proceeds upon a disregard of warning. I was following him fairly closely, though I didn't see everything, to be sure, but this happened quite rapidly, and was certainly unexpected. Why was procedure not followed? Was there some emergency? With the ANI reports, he was doing what was well within his rights, and it has turned out to be very, very useful, we may see changes in deletion policy as a result. I'm therefore asking you to reconsider the block. --Abd (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What ever happened to blocking as a last resort, especially indef blocking? -- Ned Scott 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, it is the indef part that is getting to me. He was asking for it, I just don't think it needs to be this extreme. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

DRV

Ta, I appreciate the heads-up. (Not sure anyone looks at me for precedent, but what the hey. :P) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your favourite article

Well not really, anyway, the List of hooligan firms, I have for a while wondered about some of the sources. And following your closure of the AfD and your comment about the sources, I have checked them before now but will do so again, and root out any that seem dubious. I think the majority if I recall correclty are from reliable third party sources, but no doubt a few will have slipped through. Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The List

Thank you, but also sorry.

I was one of those who added my Keep to the consensus, to the disgust of the nominator. In my initial comment, I also stated that I didn't care much for the subject matter. Thank you for resolving the AfD correctly and in the manner set down by policy. But sorry you will still have involvement in it, as it clearly distresses you. Not half as much as it distressed those trying to reason with the nominator though. I fear I shall not be volunteering to fix the references in the List! Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some problems with Moshino31

I need to hear your opinions and weigh this article: Majority Muslim countries, crated byMoshino31 who is a Muslim and extreme pro-Islam. I have added some tags on this article because it's lacking many sources, violated NPOV and the neutrality is in dispute...and he's called my revisions as vandalism in my Talk Page. Let's see the different between my revision and his revision here and its talk page so you can see how Mohshin pro-Islam and as you can see in his early version of User Page, he could be a Muslim extremist [1]

Please weigh it as soon as possible. Thank you so much and have a nice day!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be wary of calling people "extremists". It seems to me that he is claiming that the article uses information from the CIA Factbook. If that is the case, it would be regarded as a reliable source and you would need to unearth reliable evidence that contradicts those statistics. Or you would need to show that his figures are not from that reliable source, or are out of date.Black Kite 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take a more careful look again because as we can see that he is not use only all sources of CIA Factbook only (he didn't added the lower estimates of Muslim percentage in some countries although it is from the same CIA Factbook) and he always choose the highest estimates of Muslim percentage.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So what is your point then, so what if I have chosen the highest percentages as long as it is from a reliable type of source then it's fine, I dont see a problem here? Moshino31 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

David H. Melnick

Don't erase this page. --Creamy3 (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Beat me to it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite/Menu

Hi. I just made a few tweaks to the above; initial idea was to contain the two images in the black box (instead of hanging out). See the div I added near the end. While in there I made a bunch of other tweaks. You should note that PowderBlue is not a legit color name - although browsers may-well support it. Anyway, I changed it to #b0e0e6 and see that there are other PowderBlues in Black Kite/Navigation - and other issues, too. I'll clean that up, too, if ya like.

I'm away for most of the coming week; keep an eye on my recent edits in the Honorverse?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the navigation page, too. Next adjustment would be to the widths of 95%… Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies

Hello looking at that AFD, the related subject is extremely disruptive as this "Geordie subject" is a matter of opinion not fact, and the argument by the uncivil and bad faith "MickMacNee" is also extremely disruptive. I am not a geordie, and I don't live near Newcastle, but I am offended by the fact that certain people are classed as geordies as not all of them are from tyneside, such as "Tony Blair" its a matter of common sense, have we heard him on the telly going "why aye man today am garn to raise tha taxes like" (in geordie) the answer is no, just saying this to support your argument. AndreNatas (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

on MickMacNee, would he warrant a block if he posts one more disruptive comment on that AFD? because it really is getting out of hand. AndreNatas (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, he's getting a little too heated but he's entitled to argue his point. Black Kite 12:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's getting out of hand now, he is having a go at everyone who votes "delete" and he labelled the AFD nomination "a joke" he also accused you of being somesort of sockpuppet I think. AndreNatas (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He has restored the comment you removed, [2]. I've had enough and I believe he should be blocked for this. AndreNatas (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Clow Cards

But they are NOT copyrighted! Patronum (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Lex Luthor tag

Just a small request, but could you give a little more explanation of your concerns on the talk page than just tagging it? Yes, it could use a look at reducing the number of images, but it would be a start if you pointed to the ones you have concerns about. - J Greb (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• See the talkpage. Black Kite 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ulysses Award

Slakr's Ulysses Award For helping to spur a ridiculously long diatribe in response to doing your job, I hereby award you a cyber copy of Ulysses. I'd deliver a copy in-person, but the thing is too freakin' huge and I'd probably pull a muscle trying to haul it around. Cheers :P --slakr\ talk / 23:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gun Sword images

I uploaded those images and now they're going to be deleted soon, could you help me how to keep them? OgasawaraSachiko (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

revert on Meta Knight and King Dedede

I was just wondering why you went and reverted my simple category addition on the redirect pages for Meta Knight and King Dedede. It looks like some kind of edit war was going on, forcing a sproct, but this addition would remain on that page regardless of the outcome. The category itself, Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters is one that's been around for a few years, and adding categories to redirect pages is fine in some cases, like this one, where it's done to make the category easier to read by categorizing a sub-topic (in this case, a sub-topic of List of Kirby characters). if you could respond on my talk page, i'd appreciate it. also, in the future, it would be nice to have an edit summary to read when you revert me, but as an admin i'm sure you know that and it was only a temporary lapse in judgement... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Molag Bal (3)

A sockpuppet case you might have experience in. User talk:MickMacNee has beenmaking strong statements about User:81.132.214.251 removing a link to List of Geordies. <<sigh>> Dlohcierekim 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

LSWR N15 class

Hello, Black Kite (the artist formerly known as EliminatorJR!). As you have reviewed a few railway-related articles before (SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes for one), would you like to peer review another article (the one above), which is on its way to eventually become FA? It would be of great help if you could, and no doubt would allow the article to be improved further. Best regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Image Use clarification

Awhile back I'd asked about the debates on Fair Use on character list pages, and was somewhat disappointed with the guidelines listed. However, reading over the FUO info page was very helpful in clarifying the current situation on Wikipedia. I will be removing the remaining images on Top 10: The Forty-Niners shortly and hosting them elsewhere with a link for users interested. Thanks for your help. Cybertooth85 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

This is by way of a heads up. Editors who participated in this fair use discussion have sort of been named as involved parties in this request for arbitration, with the caveat that they "can add themselves as they see fit". I've no idea whether you wish to involve yourself with a case that doesn't look likely to get off the ground, but thought you ought to be informed anyway. --Bragen 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

The assumption of good faith is even appropriate for Administrators. There is a discussion on the repair of the ill-advised redirects of TTN's of the main characters of OMG. I have brought the discussion to Gwern's attention and asked him to take part. This is much better than accusing editors of being disruptive without any evidence of such. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you were clearing stating that he was disrupting the encyclopedia by restoring the article. Do you have any evidence that he was aware of the discussions taking place? We assume good faith in these cases and avoid making attacks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the user did anything but a single revert? Or are you assuming he's being disruptive based on some sort of mystical insight into his actions? Labelling him disruptive with no evidence whatsoever and then leaping to such a defensive stance is troubling. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And I believe you now understand my point about how you labelled his edit. Thank you for listening. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: GTA images

Just give us a chance for a short period, say 2 days. And if it doesn't work out you have the permission. Put the copyright tag if you want but don't remove the images. Flesh-n-Bone 18:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just relax for the 2 days. All I want is that the other users or perhaps one of these that want the same as me get on wikipedia and discusses the issue. Fine? --Flesh-n-Bone 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know, wikipedia is a place where we can't say nothing but if your an admin you decide and doesn't matter what anyone says, just that your words stay. --Flesh-n-Bone 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

RSAF Super Puma 2.jpg

Hi there, sorry to trouble you but I find myself having uploaded a redundant image file (RSAF Super Puma 2.jpg) when I discover that there is already one (Singapore navy Super Puma.jpg) with much better image quality than mine so I would appreciate if you could help teach me on how to delete this redundant file now, thank you. Cheers. -- Dave1185 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blackie, I'm good now~! Cheers. Dave1185 (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image use: you win

Alright, you have the backing of your fellow admin, to which I can only shake my fist ineffectually, like the lowly plebian editor I am. Now please leave us in peace to edit the Grand Theft Auto articles. Your authority has been well established, as has your security in your ivory tower of policy. I humbly submit to your rule, my liege. Eganio^Talk 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

When the orange bar lights up!

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Well_out_of_process_block_review_re_:_User_talk:Black_Kite is the reason! Pedro :  Chat  00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

fyi

See [3]. I'm awaiting a reply. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The key word is impact

I wasn't making the whole page all in one

I needed to gather further information after the initial page building.

Gun Sword images

I understand your opinions, but i don't really know how to keep them, if you don'y mind, could you help me on doing that, they're going to be delete the day after tomorrow soon. OgasawaraSachiko (Contact me here) 13:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletes into redirects?

Hi. You recently nominated two articles I created for deletion (Gaknulak and Squerrik). I didn't receive a courtesy warning, and I was unaware of this until just a few minutes ago when I observed that they are now redlinks. I would have voted to merge/redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities if I had been aware of the AFDs. A very small number of votes on each AFD suggests that they were not relisted for consensus either. Is it possible to turn these two into redirects and thus have the edit histories preserved? Thanks, BOZ (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected your talk page due to vandalism from disparate I.P. ranges. Hope that's okay with you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)