Jump to content

User talk:Black Kite/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65

Transracial

It is also mentioned on CNN. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/washington-spokane-naacp-rachel-dolezal-identity/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhisteam (talk • contribs) 11:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter. There's a section in the article discussing it, the term isn't defined (we don't even have an article on it), and it contravenes BLP and MOS:IDENTITY. Consider this; if three news sources called someone an idiot, would we start our article "John Doe is an idiot"? Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, transgenderism is a clearly defined condition, to begin with, the subject of multiple scientific and sociological research and coverage. Transracialism (if that's even a word) doesn't because it's a neologism. There isn't even a Wikipedia article on it. We do have an article Racial transformation (individual), but it's appallingly written and up for deletion. As I said, we don't invent a new psychological or physiological condition because a few newspapers use the term. And we definitely don't use it in a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Tadeusz Nowak

User:Tadeusz Nowak, that issue aside, this editor is edit warring and not discussing on the talk page of the dab transracial, and refusing to the requests of several editors to use an edit summary. The dab was here before any alleged issue, and it righting a wrong doesn't trump edit warring. Another edit and they are over the brightline and will be reported and blocked. (this is a repost as cannot hold a discussion on the editors talk as comments in an ongoing discussion are selectively removed) Widefox; talk 9:57 pm, Today (UTC+1) Widefox; talk 21:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming that since he's sent it to AfD that will be the end of it; I suspect that the future of the article will depend not on the AfD but on the AfD for the racial transformation article. If that is deleted then transracial can just be redirected to the adoption article (the other one isn't really that relevant). Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Although the dab is dirty, it's a 10 year old dab, and a (likely) procedural close for the dab AfD. It's already marked for cleanup, and dab project notified. It doesn't excuse the edit warring and long-term disruption of the editor, now reported for edit warring. The content dispute over the NEO shouldn't spill over to a dab with plausible entries and a wikt link. Widefox; talk 22:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Farshad Fotouhi‎ protection level

Hi Black Kite. On 9 May 2015 you template-protected Farshad Fotouhi (log). As template protection is only meant to be used for templates, or other highly transcluded pages, did you perhaps mean to select a different level? Thanks - Evad37 [talk] 02:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Jason Isaacs, again...

Hello Black Kite! When you get a chance could you take a look at Jason Isaacs again? After you blocked Basic Bicycle (talk · contribs) a few days ago, we suddenly have a new IP, 86.147.159.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who has basically reverted all of the recent edits performed to Jason Isaacs after Basic Bicycle's block. So it looks suspicious... In any case, I can't figure out if semi-protection at Jason Isaacs may be in order, or what – such decisions are above my pay grade!! Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bhupendra Chaubey

Hi Black Kite, I notice the article on Bhupendra Chaubey has been deleted. Could i please get a link to the discussion that took place? Also, is there are procedure to appeal the decision? Thank you.Soham321 (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Haven't we had this conversation before? You even commented in the discussion (which is here). The venue for any appeal is at WP:DRV, but please note this is purely a venue for disputing the closure that the administrator (in this case User:Kudpung) made, not a venue to dispute the notability or otherwise of the subject. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we did have the conversation before. Somehow i was not able to find the link to the discussion. Thanks for your response. Soham321 (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wheel-warring by GorillaWarfare and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Félix Pérez (baseball)

Hallo. You closed the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Félix Pérez (baseball) (2nd nomination), but the article has been merged into Cincinnati Reds minor league players (as you can see on the talk page). I propose to undelete Félix Pérez (baseball), and redirect it to Cincinnati Reds minor league players. The WP:Deletion review says I should discuss it with you begore I list it. Christian75 (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

Therefore, you were recently listed as a party to 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/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

UKIP block

Hello Black Kite. I've noticed your recent block that you have placed on anyone editing the UK Independence Party page. I appreciate the reasons that you had for doing so, but wasn't a week long block a little excessive ? It means that the article is frozen at a point at which many of the very controversial recent edits have been left intact, when really (in my opinion) they should have been removed before a talk page discussion about their appropriateness could go ahead. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • If there's anything that obviously needs to be removed, ask for it on the talkpage using the edit-protected template. The edit-warring was such that I didn't really see any other choice. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick question about protection

I have no intention to edit the page and agree with your actions but I am curious, for future reference, to know whether the increased protection on the UKIP page is permanent as it first says expires 11th July then say indefinite on the explanation. To emphasise, I am not arrogating the responsibility for the vagary to you I am just inexperienced with the code.

Thanks very much for your time,

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is fully protected for one week as to editing. It is fully protected indefinitely as to moving.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Hoestermann

Would you mind looking at this user's comments (at the AFD, his talk page, the article talk page) and issuing a personal attack warning? I kind of doubt he'll take one seriously if it comes from me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ITN

Hello! Your effort to address the recurring WP:ENGVAR issue is appreciated. Please note that it applies as much to "defeat"/"defeats" (along with "beat"/"beats" and any other comparable terminology) as it does to "win"/"wins", so you actually switched the Women's World Cup item from American English to British/Commonwealth English. Our usual format (when a tournament's winner is determined in the final match) is "In [sport], [tournament] concludes with [winning team] defeating [losing team] in the final." —David Levy 13:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi David, yes I completely forgot about that. Thanks for fixing it. Originally the blurbs were separate and one was written in each version of English... Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, I saw that in the revision history. To me, such a mishmash seems even worse. (I'm American, but I find the consistent use of British English preferable to stacking two variants of an otherwise-identical construct.) So in my view, your edit was still an improvement.  :) —David Levy 13:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani disruption needing administrator attention

Hello. I don't think we've collaborated on anything here yet, but I noticed that you're online so I'll try you, because the admins who usually deal with these affairs are in the wrong time zones. There's a flare-up on multiple articles relating to India and Pakistan as we speak, between Zadon19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is pro-Pakistan and with all probability is a sock of Nangparbat, and MCIWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is pro-India and also with all probability is a sock, of either Darkness Shines or CosmicEmperor (with my guess being DS). It doesn't matter whose socks they are, though, or even if they are socks, because their edit-warring and POV-pushing is more than enough to block them anyway, considering that discretionary sanctions are in place. Both have been given discretionary sanctions notices, and Zadon19 has also received multiple other warnings, including a stern warning by C.Fred (see their talk page) and a final warning for disruptive editing by me. So would you mind taking a look at it? Thomas.W talk 13:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not here to edit war or add POV I just want the articles to be restored before the sock user arrived he has a few accounts already who edit on exactly the same issues Knightwarrior or cosmicemperor. Darknessshines usually does not add such extreme pro India pov to articles so aggressively as you can see I just want the article to be restored back to consensus no other motives from me. Zadon19 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Both of them have been blocked at WP:AN3. I posted here since I had noticed that you were online right before I posted, and the edit-warring and POV-pushing was so severe that a quick intervention was needed, both to stop the ongoing disruption and to keep other editors from joining the fight. Thomas.W talk 10:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Emyth

I note that you have unblocked this user, stating that his block for sockpuppetry was collateral damage. Although I was peripherally involved, having posted a question on his talk page relating to the block, I did not come across, and was not notified about, the ANI page until just now. It is of course water under the bridge, and I have no pressing objection to the decision, but if you review Emyth's talk page you will see that when I asked his a question about his block one of his alleged socks answered; this same editor then e-mailed me three time to insist that he was not Emyth. I had not alleged on his page that he was. I suppose there is a good reason to account for his intervention, but unless he was a sock I cannot see what it might be. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I was going off the CU evidence, which said there was a technical connection but no behavioural one at all. Given that Emyth was editing from a large educational institution, I took that to mean that Emyth and the alleged sockfarm were simply connected by that. What you say is indeed a bit odd, but looking at contributions I neither can see a connection. If you have any more information, please let me know. Black Kite (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Nothing else, no. It seemed suggestive to me that one of the alleged socks, but not Emyth, should e-mail me on three occasions to protest his innocence, given that I had done more more than ask a simple question on Emyth's talk page. But there may be a simple explanation. I cannot see it.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello. 14.98.45.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who you blocked for edit-warring about an hour ago, is back again, as 14.98.101.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), adding unsourced and improperly sourced fancruft on Kasamh Se. Thomas.W talk 19:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

UKIP

Expiry of the protection you imposed does not appear to have taught people to use the talk page to resolve issues. The minute it was removed Midnightblueowl immediately made a massive set of changes none of which had been agreed, then a one time IP address and one other UKIP only editor again made direct edits. ----Snowded TALK 08:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem I have with the UKIP page right now is that the people who initially edited the page to read "Anti-Immigration" and "British Nationalist" never had the agreement of the talk page to add it. If you look back over the last 3 years. Those two descriptions were never in the info-box. So they should both be removed, and their viability for being included should be discussed. I find it particularly troubling that they have been left there on the bases of 2 lines in a biased left wing Guardian article. Whilst my description of "Direct democracy" which was fully resourced with BBC reference was removed without discussion and my raising of it as being a current UKIP ideology above has gone completely ignored. "British Nationalist" and "anti-Immigration" should be removed from the info-box immediately and debated, which it should have been before and wasn't sufficiently and "Direct democracy" needs to be debated and considered. For the record, the main consensus above seems to be that UKIP are a "Civic-Nationalist" party and that "anti-Immigration" is not an adequate description due to UKIP's policy of controlled Global Immigration, and not wanting to put an end to immigration. Can I suggest "Civic-Nationalism", "Measured-Immigration" and "Direct Democracy" to be added to the info-box. Janice Atkinson also needs to be removed as a MEP for South East England as she was expelled from the party some time ago.User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2015 (GMT)

Reference errors on 12 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIIOB

Hello, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIIOB was recently closed as Delete. The reason I'm writing is because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIIOB F.T was also recently closed by you as Merge to FIIOB. Sorry, I should have put them up to AFD as a group.

Should FIIOB F.T. be deleted now since the merge target is invalid? Doesn't seem that CSD/PROD/AFD is appropriate

Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --CutOffTies (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

Re: Your change to Michael Schumacher. Your version doesn't make sense in English. To say that he is a "German retired racing driver", is to say that German is modifying how he retired as a racing driver. He was German before retiring, and being retired is an independent adjective. Instead, we are hoping to articulate that he is retired and that he represented Germany as his nationality as a racing driver. As such, "a retired, German racing driver" is grammatically correct. If he came out of retirement, he would still be a "German racing driver". THanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakebed (talk • contribs) 04:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin

Hi Black Kite, I would request you to consider giving your opinion, as an uninvolved Admin, on an ARCA discussion featuring me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Black Kite (talk)

 Done! Let me know if you have any questions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Justin Haskins

Greetings to you Black Kite. I am the author of the Justin Haskins article. I updated the article to better meet your concerns about unaffiliated sources and notability. I hope you find the changes worthy of retracting your nomination to have the article deleted. Based on the information now provided, Haskins is clearly just as notable as many other authors appearing throughout Wikipedia that have been approved. LibertyEditor (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

UTRS ticket #13990

Can you look at UTRS ticket #13990 and see if such a large and long block is necessary? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Biblical names of stars

I saw you just deleted Biblical names of stars as a copyright infringement of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02029a.htm, but that website carries the text of the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907, as the bottom of the page also states. The page may have been edited by its webmaster, but this is not a case of unambiguous copyright infringement. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_59&oldid=1140765453"