User talk:Black Kite

Did I...?

Was something I said in that exchange with that Capilary or whatever guy problematic, or did you just want to nuke the whole exchange to be sure to get all of whatever he said? (I never saw his last reply, the on it says is +995 bytes, was away). Tarc (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• It was him. The usual stuff about Quinn's motivation for her romantic liaisons. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So me citing something that is acknowledged by the sources already cited in the article, that is one of the roots of the controversy this article is about, is to be deleted so it would never be discussed? What part of it was offensive? About people being able to be in a romantic relationship? You know, people do that. It's how couples are formed. Then babies are born. You know where babies come from, do you? Capilleary (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You know very well what you are insinuating with that edit, and it has been proved false. This would be a good time to stop doing that. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

What has been proven false? There are photos proving that there was a relationship with that person. Every single discussion started on this topic is being closed down with deletion of all records. What interest do you have in hiding the truth? Capilleary (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You know very well what I mean. The relationship itself is not in question, but your edit in tandem with the sentence it followed on from, states an impropriety that has been confirmed false. Such a BLP violation is not going to stand in the article. Ever. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not know what you mean. There is a relationship that is the foundation of the accusations of conflict of interest. That is a FACT. I wrote it down in a civil manner that is not offensive, with references to the sources that already existed in the article. The only thing that was presented as a counter-argument is the article on the same website that is blamed for corruption, that wrote basically that a personal relationship with the subject does not represent a conflict of interest, which is outright absurd. I admit that it is up for discussion, and if it's more important for the counter-claim to be referenced on a news site, I was willing to wait until it is referenced. But instead of that, you went on deleting even the history of this debate. This is an outright abuse from your behalf. And it's appalling that you're trying to hide it behind an "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" claim. Tell me exactly what's insulting, degrading or offensive, besides yours and their behavior. Capilleary (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are unable to comprehend that your edit introduced a statement (not a claim, a statement) that Quinn used the relationship for her own advantage - something that is reliably sourced as being false - then I am afraid that I cannot help you. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The "reliable" source is the one being questioned. You're introducing a circular argument (the source is reliable because it says it's reliable). And using that to silence those who you do not favor by permanently deleting any trace of activity on the subject. You are also using a straw man argument. I did NOT state that anyone used any relationship to one's own advantage. I stated that there was credibility in the allegations about conflict of interest. Thus, no "grossly insulting", nor "grossly degrading", or "grossly offensive" material from my part. So what's your next excuse for silencing me? What are you doing on Wikipedia anyway? Capilleary (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, to use my last shred of good faith, if you genuinely believe that your edit is valid because the source being used in the article to disprove it is unreliable, then that's something you should be discussing on the talk page, not blithely circumventing it in the article. And if you believe there is "credibility in the allegations about conflict of interest" then you need to produce a reliable source to explain why it is credible. Otherwise, your edit is simply your opinion - and an opinion that violates BLP cannot stand. Now, please use the talk page to propose your changes. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether my interpretation of common sense is correct or not, this should have remained in the history. History is viewed to determine if there were any abusive edits. I consider my rollbacks to be abusive for example. And many will agree. Your actions, of deleting the edit record, is what is appalling. Your failure to present ONE shred of evidence that it falls under BR2, is appalling. Your failure to acknowledge your abuse is appalling. As for the talk page - it is impossible to have a debate there, because topics are closed, and those that even mention reformulating are bombarded with hate from certain users that are NOT censored, despite the rules. The "Talk" page is just for show. It seems that the rest of it as well. For some reason it is OK to throw baseless accusations and insults towards a whole culture and its members, and not OK to question the journalistic integrity of the "reporters" that did it. You're a disgrace to Wikipedia. I will not waste any more time with you because it looks like you're extremely biased on the subject, and heavily protecting those who write real insults on Wikipedia. Capilleary (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my Edit Warring warning

I am aware of the 3 revert rule, and have no intentions to revert indefinitely. You have written "To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." This is exactly what I have done and none of the other people involved in this edit war have engaged. From the very point when I made this edit, I have asked for a response on the talk page. All 3 people who have reverted my post (yourself included) have not given me a response. Could you kindly do so? Bosstopher (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think NorthbySouthBaranof's comment on the talk page (which sums the issue up) together with mine and others edit-summaries make it quite clear, do they not? Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not think so. Hence why I wrote a response to them before making my edit justifying my position. Baranof's comment only explains why the sources shouldnt be used to accuse anti-GamerGate people of being behind the DDoS. It does not justify leaving it out of the article altogether. I have posted why I think this is warranted article space in the talk page, and not of the edit summaries have even remotely adressed any of the points i have made, with the first edit comment made by Tarc [unless I failed to understand it] being just plain factually incorrect. A response to my post in the talk page is warranted in this situation. Bosstopher (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Since, even if the event actually happened, we don't know who was actually behind it and whether it was relevant to GamerGate itself, that's (one of) the problem(s). Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I have addressed this point in both my talk page response (which brings up the comparison to the indiegogo hacking), and in the edit i made itself, which specifically points out how the claim that thread page for GamerGate on the escapist [rather than any other part of the website] was DDoSed. Could you kindly respond to these points on the GamerGate talk page itself. I ask this so that other editors can join into the discussion. Is it also ok if I copy and paste this discussion into the talk page for further clarity or do you object? Also what reason do we have to suspect the DDoS didnt happen at all. Nobody has brought up any reasons for these suspicions on the talk page. Bosstopher (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Gresford disaster

The reason for my doubt about the copyright status of the song is that, currently, anonymous works in the UK seem to be copyright protected for 70 years (see for example commons:Commons:Anonymous works). Although this would put it out of copyright in the UK this means it would have been in copyright on the date of restoration (see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights) and so would be copyrighted in the US for 95 years from publication and so still in copyright in the US (again see the commons page or WP:PD. I'm far from convinced by my reasoning but am concerned enough to tag it. Do you have a different take on the situation?

• Not at all, as I said I wasn't sure, so since the article was on the main page I thought the best course of action was to remove the possible copyvio until we could work out exactly what the situation was. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)