Jump to content

User talk:Black Kite/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Just to let everyone know

Today someone made a change to the Britain dab page. An editor put British Isles in the first section of the page under what "Britain" may refer to and they added better wording, then removed British Isles from the see also section. [1]. I saw the removal of British Isles so reverted the changes, then restored it when i saw better wording had been added but moved it back down to the see also section where Terminology of the British Isles is also listed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

dimale

why can megistias edit the article and i cant..? have you compared versions and found his to be better? why dont you take a look...? im seriously asking85.73.219.34 (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Specific Examples page

That page appears to be just a talking shop and its not getting anything done. Several people have given good reasons in one case on the French Invasion why use of British Isles should remain, yet Highking just refuses to accept this. How long do we have to wait before that case is closed and put into an archive so we can move onto the next one? We have dozens of examples to get through, we cant spend weeks on each one. Coal measures is clearly justified as well considering as stated theres a book on the thing in the British Isles. Theres only one of the original 3 where there has been very little justification and thats the one on some guy. The whole sentence is completly unsourced and should be removed, rather than simply removing just the British Isles. But how long before action is taken on these things? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Either we discuss these things or we descend into edit-warring. I've already said what is going to happen if the latter starts happening again, so frankly, at the moment, I think a talking shop is less disruptive. Having said that, if there is a clear, obvious, sourced reason for a particular side to be taken on an article, ping me (or any other neutral admin) and let us have a look at it with an unbiased eye. Black Kite 23:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2

Hi, Black Kite. Since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination), you may be interested in a DRV for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination). Best, Cunard (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Radical theory/Theory

I think it may be useful to redirect FRTA to free-radical theory. I was checking out the article and it says there that it is an abbreviation used for free-radical theory of aging which it is short for (and redirects there). Also I noticed there's no disambig for the shorter phrase in the title (minus the 'free') which besides this could also refer to literature titles like:

The only thing is, I'm not sure if any of these titles are notable enough to list on a disambiguation page. The majority of results I got in the search refer to the free radical theory of aging so it might be simpler to just redirect it there, but I wasn't sure if any of these title might be notable enough that a disambiguation page might be preferable. Certainly they're too numerous to list in a header. Do you think it might be appropriate to list them and link to where they're used as references? Tyciol (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, Charles Karel Bouley article

Below please find the question(s) I asked of you a week ago. If you could be so kind, I'd appreciate a reply.

Two questions: (1) Is the lock you recently placed on the Charles Karel Bouley universal to all editors or am I the only one locked out? (2) Since the article is locked, would you consider reverting the edit made by JoyDiamond at 23:58, 25 September 2009? What she placed there is nothing more than text from a quoted source and does not appear to be a NPOV. Also, as requested, I have started discussion on the talk page of the article. Thanks. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

I have strong suspicion that this IP editor is evading his block, as he/she had been observed to have blanked the indef-block template of another IP editor for no apparent reason and he had abused/insulted a registered user. Also, the aforementioned IP editor keeps blanking the discussion page without addressing his/her prior issues. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Block of Throwaway85

Editor Throwaway85 has proffered an explanation for his personal attack and seems to have some level of understanding of why this was a problem. Could you review this situation and see if you feel it mitigates the necessity of a block? Thanks. Kuru talk 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked and re-opened the ANI thread. I'm sure you did what seemed the right thing on the basis of that report, but there's a wider picture here (and an indef ban for a single comment? really?). Please comment there if you wish to discuss the matter. cheers Rd232 talk 10:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem

OK, I've done it and asked Slrubenstein and anyone else around to comment at AN/I. I'm keeping the unblock under consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

racism

I'd rather it be read as subtle irony, rather than bollocks. Either way, I struck it out. But I have to say, that Virgin train TV advert with the Indians was in my view very racist. cheers, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the idea ... it just seemed lik the kind of commercial one would make in the 1950s. What really shocked me was that chewing gum commercial (with the Jamaican - I guess - comedian or performance artist or whatever. Glad that they pulled that commercial, that showed some public awareness .... but what on earth were the ad execs thinking? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI Charles Karel Bouley

FYI your note on the talk page said you protected it for "a short time" - you actually protected it indefinitely. If this was intentional and you're monitoring the situation, then forgive the intrusion. Else you may want to set an expiry =) –xenotalk 13:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite - is there some specific reason as to why you have ignored two communications from me to you regarding the Charles Karel Bouley article? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Black Kite please protect article indefinitely. Everything in dispute has been again changed, again. Incorrect and negative edits, not neutral, have been made. I would appreciate your further intervention in returning this article to accurate and NPOV status. I am not going to even attempt editing anything further until a proper consensus has been obtained. My perfectly good and accurate citations have been removed. I am very careful to keep my edits neutral. OTOH, I was present for most of the events in the article and therefore know what is true and accurate and carefully cite my edits. I was also hoping for some discussion, or would it be an intervention? ;-) How does one facilitate that momentous event actually happening?

In cruising through user boxes I found a couple that give food for thought:

Wikipedia is NOT interested in TRUTH, but only VERIFIABILITY! . "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

Wikipedia is CENSORED!. No matter how many people saw it, if it isn't written in a publication, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Please take these userbox comments in the good humor intended. JoyDiamond (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Injustice etc. on AN

Thanks deleting that mess on AN. I will steer clear of that page from now on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Respected User: Neutralhomer, I still believe that it was an injustice. You have already accepted that you were blocked 10 times so far. It show your own history very clearly. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please restore my complaint in the admins board and please let others Admins decide against your decision

Respected Sir/Madam

You had already given your decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

The reason I reported it to Admin’s board, was to highlight this issue infront of other admins (other than you). There was no need for you to delete the complaint from Admin’s board. You could have given other administrators a chance to analyze my complaint.

You could have simply added your comments below my complaint. By deleting it twice (from two separate noticeboards0 you have killed other admin’s chance to read the facts highlighted in my complaint AND you have also killed my voice to be heard by rest of the Admins.

Being a poor editor, I can not go against you otherwise you can block me. So it is my humble request to you to please restore my complaint in Admins board and let other admins (other than you) to decide otherwise poor editors like me will loose their faith from Wikipedia justice.

An humbe editor. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Other admins did decide. They removed it. → ROUX ₪ 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Largest village

Could you explain the reasoning behind your keep decision? Fences&Windows 23:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


User talk:Druid.raul

Um, you want to look at your revert there again...[2] 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have given you more info. As the history and a thread on ANI show, Druid.raul is an indef blocked user removing the block notice from his page. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing

"Effectively we have one editor persistently reverting the edits of others. This needs to be discussed on the talk page, not by repeated blind reversion".

Did you read the talk page? If you had then you would have seen that there is an open RFC, so I don't see how the comment you put in the history is justified, and if you did not read the talk page then was not your revert a blind revert?-- PBS (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Degradation of Wikipedia

Can you please explain, Black Kite, how British Islands can possibly be correct on all those articles you allowed HighKing to revert back to? ðarkuncoll 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's right or not. Bold, Revert, Discuss. The warning about reverting a revert was very clear. However, I have told HK that he isn't to automatically revert edits made by someone who is blocked for them in future, however. Black Kite 11:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that these articles are discussed on the Specific Examples page? You may well be right concerning some instances (and I didn't revert some of the obvious ones I also thought were dead wrong), but I don't agree with the way you've just straight swapped "British Islands" for "British Isles" when it is obvious that this is not what is intended. For many of those articles, I would recommend using the UK or even GB. --HighKing (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
But it's patently clear that British Isles is precisely what was intended, by someone ignorant of the fact that "British Islands" is a term restricted to citizenship law. How can a plant or animal recognise the artifical boundary of NI, and how did the ancient Phoenicians have any concept of the UK? You don't need refs, as you asked for, to state the obvious. ðarkuncoll 09:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Patently clear? If so, produce a reference. That's the standard being adopted here for insertion and/or deletion of the term. --HighKing (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It's you who needs to supply a reference for British Islands, because it's clearly incorrect. There's no need to provide references for the obvious. ðarkuncoll 11:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes. The old "British Isles is *always* correct and doesn't ever ever need a reference" argument. --HighKing (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, the old straw-man argument of misrepresenting one's opponent's position. I have never said that British Isles is "always" correct. There are countless thousands of articles that don't have it, and shouldn't have it. But in all the cases you reverted - which speak of animals and ancient history etc., British Isles is the only correct option. ðarkuncoll 11:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
These obvious cases should be corrected, we shouldnt leave inaccurate information in articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and did you take into account all the facts when you closed the French invasion one. Two different sources have been provided showing use of British Isles in exactly the same way which is why the term is used there. Further down the page there was exenstive talk on the subject (it wasnt just in the French section of the talk page). Please re open that case. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is certainly being degraded. I've corrected a few of HighKing's latest POV edits where obvious errors have been introduced. I leave it to the rest of you to argue the point about the rest. When, when when!!! is something going to be done about this editor? This has been going on for years. LemonMonday Talk 11:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)BK, I assume you are going to revert the reverts done by LemonMonday? Also, if you check LemonMonday's past contributions you can see that 99% of his edits essentially are reversions of mine, and are always to do with British Isles. It's essential that there are no run-arounds being used or abused by any editors if we are to make progress, and it wouldn't be the first time when editors tag-team on this topic. --HighKing (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, I am going to look at the reverts by this account, but this will be "sometime this weekend". It's my oldest's birthday today, so I have priorities. Black Kite 19:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Going for a pint with your oldest ;-# Yup, that's deffo a priority! No hurry. This won't be fixed in a hurry. --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ping. Just a reminder on this. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Just another ping. Don't want to open a new section but equally not sure if you've remembered this overhang from the weekend. --HighKing (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi BK, has this slipped your mind? Just another ping. --HighKing (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I've never actually done this before, but I think there's a very serious case for reporting an admin, namely Black Kite, for bias. If anyone can tell me how I do this, it would be much appreciated. In short, I have been blocked, but HighKing has been allowed to revert to patently incorrect information. Why is this? ðarkuncoll 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You go to WP:ANI, let us know when you do so that we can (i) defend one of the few admins prepared to do something about mindless edit warring and (ii) raise your own conduct over a long period of time in the same forum. --Snowded TALK 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
My own conduct over a long period of time? You mean valuing facts above politics, and truth above expediency? Black Kite's response has been to back one side (the political POV pushers) and to block those on the other side. Can you possibly be defending this? ðarkuncoll 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it really possible that you believe that is what you have been doing? --Snowded TALK 23:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Please Tharky, don't do it. Ya should participate at the Specific Examples page, instead. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm tired of talking round in circles for years, never getting anywhere. And as soon as one supposed compromise is reached, "new" editors come along to attack and undermine it, and so the whole process starts over again. ðarkuncoll 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
That's the nature of Wikipedia, always evolving. Old editors leaving & newbies replacing them. Give the Specifics Example page a try. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The point Tharky is that you need to discuss things. The case for replacing British Islands with either Britain and Ireland or British Isles is strong, as is the case for removing British Isles in several cases. However edit warring on individual articles is not the way to resolve it - hence the value of Black Kites independent approach here. --Snowded TALK 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I made an edit, and HighKing mindlessly reverted it, knee-jerk style. It is not I who started an edit war. And, as I've intimated above, whereas Black Kite's approach may well be independent, it is most certainly not neutral. ðarkuncoll 00:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You knew exactly what you were doing and the consequences. You have e started and/or continued a number of edit wars in the past - just look at your block log. If you really think you are in the right take it to ANI and see --Snowded TALK 00:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Snowded, do you also think that HighKing has started and/or continued a number of edit wars in the past? MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Wiki-Blocks are a badge of honour in many cases. Like the arrest record of a dissident in a tyranny. They are not to be taken seriously - deal with the the issues as they present themselves. I am thinking of launching a Jihad against citers of block records. Sarah777 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
How intelligent, MidnightBlue says "they did so we will do it to" and Sarah regards a block as a badge of honour. Sorry Sarah, I agree with you on many things, but not that one, so if I have to go into hiding come the opening of your jihad, so be it. --Snowded TALK 13:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I asked you a strightforward question (in a manner that you frequently use). What is your answer? MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh --Snowded TALK 13:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Presumably that means "yes". MidnightBlue (Talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are currently articles that have "British Islands" in, incorrectly which should say British Isles and yet we appear not to be allowed to correct such mistakes. That is very different to the anti British isles brigade which simply hunts for places where a different term can be used, it aint about them being incorrect they just want something else because they dont like British Isles.

I still want to see the French invasion example reopened. I do not think all the facts have been taken into account, as there was plenty more debate on the matter futher down the page, not just in that section. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And this is your idea of WP:AGF? Have you any idea how your posting sounds? We're right and they're wrong. We're correcting mistakes and they're degrading Wikipedia. We'll tar and feather them with a label of "anti-British Isles brigade". @Snowded, I seem to remember that you had good things to say about BW? There seems to be more energy going into to namecalling and stonewalling than actual discussion at the SE page. I wonder why? --HighKing (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I have stated reasons why i think the coal measures and the French invasion articles use British Isles correctly and do not need to be changed, However you disagree and want them removed. In both of those cases there is clearly no consensus for the removal of British Isles.
When people disagree with your proposed changes, you seem to think its stonewalling. Im sorry that you cant see a difference between the two situations though. In the case of the French invasion, the question is if theres a more precise term to use rather than British Isles, be it Britain or Britain and Ireland. Ive yet to see people claim British Isles is actually incorrect, that compared to the situation with British Islands where we have articles linking to a legal term which are obviously not restricted by the Northern Ireland border with the Republic of Ireland.. There for they are incorrect and need changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The place for these discussion is on the SE Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dimale

IP user has done it again with another number now.IPuserMegistias (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

megistias is reverting to his version with no discussion even after i invited him he wont talk...this version includes much more information...the difference in page size is because he cites whole pages for refs...please check both versions85.73.218.238 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion in the talk page and your edits exhibit what you are doing.Megistias (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The real question is whose socks all those Ip's belong to.Megistias (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

so we can stop this please check both versions or bring someone who wants to..we cant agree so we need someone else85.73.218.238 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is Sarandioti again? Or someone else?Megistias (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Relist Nicholas Beale AfD please

Hi. No process objection to the speedy but "Christian Apologist" cannot be a BLP violation, surely? --BozMo talk 05:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Depends how you use "apologist". These days it seems to carry the usage of defending the indefensible i.e. "apologist for terrorism". I'd say a better phrase was available. Black Kite 06:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. In religious circles it is very widely used in an entirely positive manner, especially in phrases like Christian apologist and Christian apologetics and the first three pages of Google did not seem to contain a negative usage to me. It is the correct technical religious title. Of course apologist has been borrowed for other things but then again so has Pope --BozMo talk 18:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this?

In March 2009 there was a discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu where it was agreed that number of episodes in infoboxes are OK. On October 4, 2009 User:Ryulong (the only user in that discussion who thinks number of episodes should not be in infoboxes) removed the number of episodes in the infobox in the Kamen Rider Double article,[4] so I reverted has edit per the discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu[5] then he reverted my edit saying "Nothing came about it"[6] so I reverted has edit again saying "I think you need to look at that discussion again as it was agreed that number of episodes in infoboxes are OK"[7] but he reverted my edit again saying "New show, and no weekly updates"[8] so I reverted has edit again this time saying "STOP reverting, it was agreed at that discussion that number of episodes in infoboxes are OK"[9] and he reverted my edit again saying "new discussion is necessary"[10] This is not the first time Ryulong has edit warred over this as the March discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu was started because Ryulong was edit warring with other user over this in the Power Rangers: RPM article. So what do you think about this? Powergate92Talk 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I expected this from Powergate92. I would like a new discussion to be made because the tokusatsu articles are formatted differently than other articles: there is a shorthand episode list on the main article page and a more indepth episode list as its own article. There is no reason to have two things constantly updated on the article, particularly when the number of episodes is already further down in the article. Before Powergate92 and I continue to edit war, particularly now by getting other users to edit for him, I would like to initiate a new discussion for a new consensus to be determined.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Discuss it then! I'm hardly Powergate's best friend (ask him about non-free images), but he's right here - the consensus was there, leave it where it is and open a new discussion. Black Kite 18:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong has now reverted your edit.[11] Powergate92Talk 22:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You do not need to notify him of every instance of this happening. The number does not need to be there and I have put in a different option to serve as an alternate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong has added a message to the Kamen Rider Double and Power Rangers: RPM‎ articles saying "This number does not need to be updated on a weekly basis. Only update monthly" but at the March discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu it agreed that the numbers can be update weekly. Powergate92Talk 00:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Black Kite does not need to be updated on everything in this whole situation. I say at the end of the whole March discussion "I still do not think that number needs to be updated on a weekly basis. I would prefer if it were updated monthly or seasonally (as in every three months), as the section for the episodes themselves is updated weekly." There was no consensus for weekly updating and I am currently seeking that a new consensus be made because I disagree with what was done, and there needs to be more input on this outside of you (Powergate92) and I, as it essentially had been in the March discussion. I think this thread here should be closed, because it is only cluttering up Black Kite's talk page, and he does not need to be involved in our dispute any more than you asked him in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
At the March discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu, me, User:Bignole and User:Mythdon agreed that the numbers can be update weekly, you were the only users who disagreed. Powergate92Talk 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Bignole made one comment, and you and Mythdon barely contribute to these articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Barely contributing to these articles or not, it was still agreed. Powergate92Talk 01:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As the only member of that discussion who actively edits the articles in question who disagreed, I see a misappropriated consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not ask Black Kite to revert your edit, I asked Black Kite "What do you think about this?" Powergate92Talk 22:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It's clear what was meant to happen. And while discussion is ongoing, I am tired of having to see that a consensus forced upon me by a now banned editor and his compatriot is kept in place. Consensus can change and I hope it will change in this instance.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

dimale

i asked you to comment but you didnt bother and protected the article...so why did you protect the article so 1 editor who reverts can edit it and the other 1 who reverts as well cant..? did you think my version was worse than megistias...or even read both which i doubt...if yes why? do you realize what the difference in size is due to and what version includes more information? i would like an explanation...since im unable to edit an article i mostly wrote myself because a user like megistias only likes some of the info i add..85.73.215.61 (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing

this edit with the comment "Effectively we have one editor persistently reverting the edits of others. This needs to be discussed on the talk page, not by repeated blind reversion" yet there has been lots of talk on the talk page too which as far as I can tell you have not contributed so are you not making a "blind reversion" why you make such an edit? -- PBS (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Adele (1906)

Please take a look at the article, I believe that any copyvio concerns have been addressed now. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

AGF

Please do not make comments like this in the future, they are extremely unhelpful: "trying to stir up drama against an editor with whom you have previously had disputes is unhelpful". The AN thread is there to allow for calm dispute resolution without people violating protocol and causing disruptions. Your accusations are inflammatory and do nothing to calm anything down. I ask that you refrain from making such inappropriate charges in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please start a WQA about it. There is enough off topic commentary. You are causing disruption which is what the whole thread is about - people constantly come in and are disrupting DR attempts. I just want -standard- processes to work as they are intended without all of the constant attempts at derailing them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
It takes two parties to disrupt. Even if you think you are stopping him, you are only increasing the dispute and pushing it further off topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Largest village revisited

Perhaps I should drop the stick, but while I know there are sources for the Largest village in England article, that misses the point. What did you make of the argument that none of the sources actually discussed the topic of the largest village? The sources give bare claims in passing, i.e. "x is the largest village in England" with no further discussion, and most are primary sources. The lead is all original editorializing; none of that comes from the sources. Is it acceptable practice to stitch together articles out of single line mentions, and should we now abandon the concept of "significant coverage"? Fences&Windows 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Red Riding Hood Chacha

This is listed as the translation for Akazukin Chacha and I would like to redirect it there seeing as how this would be what it would be called in english and it's listed on the page. Tyciol (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh and also, Miley Ray Stewart could redirect to Miley Stewart (it's listed as the full name of the fictional character) and Miley Ray could refer to either her or Cyrus who portrays her since it's their forenames (first+middle). Destiny Hope & Hope Cyrus would refer to her too I think (Destiny Hope Cyrus directs there). Ray Cyrus on the other hand could refer to her or her dad Billy, possibly others but it's hard to find anything else in a search. As for making FRTA into a disambig, I'd like to do that, but I'm sort of at a loss on how to locate other things which could fit under the acronym. Is there a special search function which locates separate words, or did you extrapolate on FRT with a succeeding A or RTA with a preceding F? Tyciol (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Miley Ray Stewart is fine, but for the love of God please don't start up on the Elton Hercules route again. By all means Miley Ray Cyrus and Destiny Hope Cyrus as redirects to Miley Cyrus, but you've had the lecture on middle names often enough now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I found three more FRTAs just by putting FRTA into the search --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice finds, I actually didn't think of doing the obvious and putting in the acronym as I guess I for some absurd reason didn't perceive that it would be used in an article, but that makes sense. Anyway yeah, great disambig finds. Thanks for endorsing the chacha BK so I will make that. The reason was FRT redirected to FLP-FRT so I put that in as opposed to editing the redirect itself, do you think it might be appropriate to change that into a disambig and mention that it stands for free radical theory as well as Flippase Recognition Target? Probably others, like even partials of the previous like Franklin Regional Transit or Federal Reserve Transparency. A bit confused by the museum, isn't that FRTM? Ah wait okay it's for the Fox River Trolley Association mentioned there, I see. Tyciol (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh and I was wondering if it would be okay to get the go-ahead for doing various fictional character name redirects? Like for example Tomoki Sakurai to Sora no Otoshimono. In some cases I think many of these were deleted which is sort of a shame since a lot of characters don't get full articles yet people look for their names. Tyciol (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Will I just go ahead?

Hi, as per the previous conversation, you said you were going to look into his edits and you'd revert. If you haven't time, I'm happy to go ahead myself. --HighKing (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you do, HK, then I trust BK will block you and revert, as he did with me (or, to be precise, he allowed you to revert - and I shall do likewise). ðarkuncoll 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes Highking should not make changes. Changes that were made which fixed incorrect use of the term British Islands should not be reverted. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Seen as you have now removed British isles from certain articles, how about taking a look at some of the articles HighKing incorrectly reverted changes to where British islands was incorrectly said instead of British Isles. This is all seeming very one sided. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
BK, you may be an admin but that doesn't give you any rights over content. If you're concerned to prevent edit wars then have a word with HighKing about it because he is the cause of them all. I note you've finally bowed to his constant niggling and reverted some of the contested articles. I've had a look at these again and I can accept the points you've made on three of them (why didn't you open a section on that discussion page or "Take it to Talk"). Two others were obviously wrong so I've corrected them - again! I suggest we all leave it at that and draw a line under it. As for the suggestion about onesidedness, I agree with it. HighKing is in a minority and he seems to have a political agenda, but you support him. As BW says why not take a good look at his edits? Why not go back to when all this started and review the 100s of articles where he's removed reference to British Isles simply because he doesn't like it. LemonMonday Talk 11:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Step back you guys, and just have a think about what you're saying. HK can't remove BI (even with references) and has opened a special page to discuss articles. You, on the other hand, believe it's OK to insert and use BI anytime you like, with or without references. (BTW, LM, comment on the content, not the editor. That's policy.) I, for one, am delighted that BK is finally perhaps starting to see and understand the tag-teaming, reverting, illogical applications of policy, namecalling, bullying, and stonewalling that disrupt this project.
BK, you might want to take a look at the most recent LM reverts of your reverts Epinotia Immindana and Nothofagus Alpina. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted Olethreutes arcuella as well. You've deleted potentially useful information so I've put it to Talk. LemonMonday Talk 12:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You have failed to provide a reference. My advice is to self revert, or you may end up with a temp block. --HighKing (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

HK, what you call "tag-teaming" is actually what most people would call consensus. ðarkuncoll 12:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And what precisely has Northern Ireland got to do with this Nothofagus alpina - see your recent revert? LemonMonday Talk 12:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It was meant to say "NI/Ireland", as I've pointed out on your talkpage. Black Kite 12:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest you back off. Your implied threat of disruption by me and not you is inappropriate. You seem to have been dragged into the edit war so I'd hate to see you (ab)use your admin powers to enforce your version of something. LemonMonday Talk 12:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a question here, to anyone who cares to answer. Why is there all this emphasis on providing sources for things like British Isles while no mention of sources is made for the topic of the article itself. LemonMonday Talk 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've now substantially edited the Nothofagus alpina to cleanup the article, remove dubious assertions and sources (relating to USA), and the article now follows the sources accurately. --HighKing (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know, perhaps it's because disruptive editors keep trying to shoehorn the phrase back into these utterly irrelevant article in an attempt to win a totally pointless political point-scoring exercise? Yes, that'd be correct. And I'll say it again - my versions are an attempt to neutralise the articles to prevent continuing edit-wars - yours are threatening to continue the edit-war. That ticks all the boxes on "disruption" for me. Black Kite 12:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You are "neutralising" the articles by acceeding to the demands of the one editor who is pushing for the removal of the term British Isles, whereas at least three editors here feel that the term is appropriate. Far from neutralising the situation, you are exacerbating it. ðarkuncoll 12:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. If the term "British Isles" could not be avoided then of course it must stay. I think if you looked into previous history of this you would realise that I am no fan of HighKing's editing either, but that goes for both sides. What I am trying to do is remove the term - and thus the possibility for edit-warring where it isn't vital for it to be there - such as the moth articles. Black Kite 13:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well that is absolute rubbish! You admit you are trying to remove the term to avoid the possibility of edit warring. It's hardly ever vital for that, or any other term, "to be there" in articles to which the term is incidental, namely most articles that include the words "British Isles". Let me rework your explanation: An editor doesn't like the term British Isles. His actions in tirelessly trying to remove it provoke edit wars, ill feeling and general unhappiness amongst other editors. I am going to remove the term where it isn't vital for it to be there, to prevent the edit warring. That is, I support the actions of the editor trying to remove the term. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Kist to say that I think Black Kite has cut a gordian knot here, removing a controversial terms when its use is not necessary is reasonable --Snowded TALK 21:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a raised a couple of points at Talk:Olethreutes arcuella concerning the use of the term British Isles. Jack forbes (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but i no longer consider Black Kite a neutral admin on this matter. Its clear that Black Kite thinks the British Isles should be removed from articles where ever possible in an attempt to appease certain editors. I must say im very disappointed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And when a "neutral admin" comes in and disagrees with you they will no longer be neutral. You yourself agreed that it didn't belong on the Olethreutes arcuella article. Jack forbes (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasnt that removal, it was the statement that BK is trying to remove British Isles from where ever its not "vital". That doesnt seem fair to me. There needs to be clear justification for attempts to remove British isles from articles, not simply remove it if it can possibly be replaced by any other term.. thats unfair. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How about Punics that is clearly meant to be British Isles not British islands, which is only a legal term. How can we leave something like that pointing at an incorrect article just to appease Highking.. its disgraceful. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source for the Punics article to say British Isles [12] As you can see the book which was clearly used to source that article says British Isles. Yet the person who originally wrote the article accidently put British Islands. This is why all those reverts Highking recently did need to be undone, because they are incorrectly saying British Islands to mean British isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually that example clearly needs to be changed to British Isles because the source has been found. How about this one Early Medieval Alliance, its obvious that they mean British isles there rather than British islands but im not sure if theres a source for it. What should happen for that one? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As I've said before, if you've got a solid source, then insert it and change the wording. No-one is ever going to be blocked for that. Black Kite 22:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok so i have permission to change British islands to British isles on Punics? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it appears reasonable. Make sure you include the source. Black Kite 22:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
To be accurate, the sentence requires more clarification. I'll take it to the article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Are you sure your neutral Black Kite? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks that one has been added. So what about the other example. Its clearly about the British Isles and not the British islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well actually, looking at their website [13], unless I've missed something, all their member societies are on the mainland. So if that's the case, it needs to be "Great Britain" rather than a version of BI. Black Kite 05:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Gelato Fiasco

Hi Black Kite. Would you mind moving this article to my userspace? If it's note quite notable yet I think it will be soon. I would have asked someone else, but you closed the AfD, so I think I'm supposed to ask you first. Or maybe that's just for DRVs? Anyway, let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with edit wars?

Hi Black Kite,

I was wondering if you could clarify some things about edit wars for me. A few days back, you closed my edit war report as a no violation. Could you clarify why? My reasoning was that, even though WikiLubber didn't break the 3RR in those particular edits on the Super Mario Bros. (film) articles, if one user thinks that the movie is a classic, and the other doesn't, and one of them keeps reverting the edits of the other, doesn't that still constitute as an edit war? Perhaps I have my reasoning wrong, so if you clarify so I can avoid the same mistake in the future, that'd be great. (I'll be offline right after I write this message, in case you expect a reply). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Saint Pancake

I just wanted to point out that it's not just sourced to blogs (how do you source a redirect, anyway?) -- Salon reported on the "Saint Pancake" epithet as well. I added a link to the article in the support section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Linas

I'm trying to engage with him, so I've restored his userpage (though not the page you deleted). Give me some time on this, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, as long as you're commenting on Fair Use Rationales, do you have an opinion on Talk:Derek Warfield? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Durand

Richard Durand was an article you deleted. Could you move it to my userspace at User:ASOTMKX/Richard Durand. Thanks. ASOTMKX (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

could you restore the article without the copyright violation then.ASOTMKX (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Image use policy clarification

If you have the time I'd like your input on my proposed clarification of WP:Image use policy concerning fair-use/copyright versus public-domain/trademark image use. The proposal is contained here. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Just wondered if there was a reason you deleted my entire comment at ANI about the Hollywood/Jew article? Frmatt (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'll restore it in a minute! Frmatt (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason for tag on PS Home page

Can you justify your reasoning for the non-free overuse tag that you added to the PlayStation Home page? JDC808 (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review

Hi BK, this edit was left by Tharky on my Talk page. In light of his several warnings in the past about personal comments and breaches of policies in this regard, perhaps you can think of some way to remind him more forcefully. In addition, he breached your clear rules in regards to inserting "British Isles" into Benjamin Franklin without references, which I have now reverted. --HighKing (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, British Isles was already in the article, which HighKing removed (see this edit). In terms of British Isles, therefore, I was merely reverting, and it is therefore HighKing who has now reverted a revert - so it should be he who is reprimanded. Furthermore, my comments on his talk page were perfectly polite and - above all - accurate. ðarkuncoll 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Highking should clearly not have made that change, removing British Isles without consensus. Its amazing he has the nerve to come here moaning about it being readded when he removed it without agreement! BritishWatcher (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow ive just seen the mess he created on that article, putting totally incorrect information just for the sake of removing British Isles. Its disgraceful BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, the source he uses is suspect. It spells the town in question "Litchfield", when in fact Erasmus Darwin lived at Lichfield (Staffordshire), not Litchfield (Hampshire), and doesn't even appear to know which Darwin it's talking about, hence HK's elementary mistake. It also describes a trip from London to Manchester as a "short journey". ðarkuncoll 15:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I don't know about you BK, but I'm getting pretty sick the constant harassment, stonewalling, name calling, and downright bullying. It's nasty and shouldn't be tolerated. --HighKing (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. So why do you do it then? Everything you have falsely accused me of, you are in fact guilty of yourself. ðarkuncoll 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Here we go YET AGAIN! When, FFS, is this going to stop? TharkunColl is correct. HighKing removed BI in September for no good reason other than his own POV. The recent edit by TharkunColl added some useful material and I'm inclined to revert to it. What is the current status of being blocked for reverting a revert. On the more general issue, is there some permanent sanction that can be placed against HighKing? I know I've asked this before, but it really is now getting beyond a joke. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that a RFAR is the only way to go here. This will take some time to put together, though, and I am going no holiday on Friday. I will see what I can do. Black Kite 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that is premature. You asked me to set up the SE page as being the way forward, with notice given to involved editors of blocks for not adhering to the rules you outlined. You outlined simple rules - you stated no removals or additions without refs or face a block. But to date, every time there has been a breach, you've not taken any action. Would you not think to try to impose your rules first to at least attempt to exhaust that possibility? And encourage involvement on the SE page as a way forward? With a little application and a stricter enforcement of key civility policies, I believe you'll find most of the venom and rhetoric simply evaporates and disappears. We can easily see that it's the same editors time after time. If the behaviour continues after a couple of reminders and blocks, then I'd agree we should swiftly move to RFAR. Perhaps, if you are heading on hols, another admin might step into the breach? --HighKing (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

BK, why haven't you blocked HK for reverting a revert? He removed British Isles, I reverted. He then reverted my revert, and you specifically warned him not to do this again. He also restored incorrect information, even after I had pointed out to him that it was wrong, such as the home of "Dr Darwin" being "Litchfield". In addition, he restored the absurd statement that the journey from London to Manchester is "short", derived from the same unreliable website. ðarkuncoll 10:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

BK, the above is a fine example of the smokescreen being put out by Tharky. He claims he reverted my revert, yet his edits aren't marked as a revert, and there are 50 edits between his so-called revert and my edit in early September. My edit to the article was made *before* we set up the SE page and before you put the rules in place. My editting was factually correct and in line with the available references, which we all agree is the proper way to do things. I restored information contained in the reference, not according to my own POV or Tharky's (referring to "Litchfield"). I have searched numerous references and books subsequently but I am unable to find another reference stating that the two men met at all (or that the Dr. Darwin refers to Erasmus Darwin, so we're left with the text of the existing reference. Similarly, the reference states he made "short journeys through different parts of England" and does not state that he travelled from London to Manchester. If Tharky doesn't like something, his next tactic is to attack the reference (which was in the article before I edited), yet he hasn't come up with an alternative reference (which is also pretty normal). His behaviour, and the behaviour of other editors here is specifically designed to make this task unsavory for you, and they hope that by harassment and bullying you'll eventually just give up trying to encourage a modicum of civilised collaboration on this topic. That is the result they hope for - they simply want you to wash your hands of this and give up. Given Tharky's complete disregard for what the sources actually state, and his complete disregard for observing your simple rules, and his continued harrasment and breaches of civility policy despite god-knows how many prior warnings, I'm surprised he hasn't been handed out a block already. Makes me question a number of things... --HighKing (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? May I ask which books and references you searched? I found the following in literally 3 seconds, containing the phrase, "When in Britain he often visited Darwin in Lichfield" [14] (just over half way down, the first occasion on which the term "Benjamin Franklin" occurs). Originally, of course, you thought the Darwin in question was Charles Darwin, an honest mistake no doubt, but an utterly ridiculous one, indicating quite clearly that your primary motive was not to add any new or useful info - since you were so patently unfamiliar with the subject as to be able to think it might have been Charles - but rather to remove British Isles. This is the case with all your attempts to do so, and you almost always leave the articles less informative, less readable or less reliable than before. ðarkuncoll 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_26&oldid=1136204903"