User talk:Black Kite/Archive05

ARCHIVES Archive 01 Archive 02 Archive 03 Archive 04

Hi - I notice that you're in a bit of a back-and-forth edit conflict at

Regarding M.U.L.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Field Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), please note that Hungrywolf (talk · contribs) is still up to his old tricks. He continues to making false accusations against me as a basis of his reverts, and refuses to take anyone elses opinions into consideration. I don't want to continue having an edit war with him, and you did say you were going to watch these pages and take action if necessary. I've cited the sources of all my information and he disputes the valid citations.Blackbeard2k7 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now he is repeatedly reverting my own edits on my own talk page. I'm done warring with this guy. Please fix the problem.Blackbeard2k7 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading all the exchanges correctly, you've deleted an entry for a book called "My Enemy, My Ally" by Diane Duane that I started back in July and someone else (I think Jaranda?) deleted first, and the undeleted.

Ms. Duane has an armload of books and screenplays to her credit, so this isn't an article on an unknown, nor is it self-advertising. The entry for her as an author even has a link to the book's entry but it leads to a dead end page because no one has written it yet. I own a copy of the book and happen to like it, so I thought I could expand Wikipedia by creating the entry, or at least starting it.

I admit of my own ignorance in writing the plot summary first, though I remain ignorant as to why this is a problem, or why the article was deleted in the first place. ("Wikipedia is not a plot summary" may be true, but it certainly contains enough of them that one more should not be a problem.) If you're going to keep this article deleted, can you please explain why you insist on doing so? And why you're the second editor to shoot it down altogether instead of simply appending "Plot Summary" as a header?

TravellerDMT-07 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted the above article, can you also delete Salvenmaschinenkanone? Its essentially a copy made by the same editor who created the Samaka page, and similarly empty of any good information. Thanks. Parsecboy 22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can do that. Thanks for your response. Parsecboy 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliminator, what do you think of semi-protecting this article so that only users would be able to edit it, is it plausible? Just one minute later of the removal of protection template, a new IP adress showed up and made the exact same edit which was the cause of edit warring..[1] It is hardly possible for a new IP to make such an edit in my opinion, but it is the same user who has been doing this kind of editings i think..A large properly sourced content was again unilaterally deleted without any effort in the disccussion page and replaced with nationalistic POV pushing..Regards..--laertes d 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I won't be accused of anything also just incase, since socks have been attacking the article constantly. --Vonones 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These pages are considered

'. Transwiki if an appropriate wiki is found Corpx 06:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)' This is what I'm trying to accomplish. I believe that Eve-Wiki is an appropriate and substantially contributed Wiki to outsource to. BTW, I'm not the original contributor of those articles on EVE Online. Alatari 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More clearly: if the deleted text isn't already on Eve-Wiki I could drop it over there. Alatari 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you userfy the remaining deleted EVE Online pages? Alatari 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Amarran one, the other three would be Caldari, Gallente and the Minmatar. Alatari 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on the article neutralizing it removing all kinds of dubious things until Laertes d added 'Alleged' again. Also I do not appreciate his rude/uncivil remark [2] and

Again removing tags; [3] --Vonones 00:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you have violated three revert rule in this article Vonones..[4] You made 4 reversions in 35 minutes..Just saying it..--laertes d 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right but 3RR says vandalism is ok, he was removing a sourced section. --Vonones 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3Rs on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia, today

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligvla (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a 3RR violation, I told you to use the talk but you refused, your obviously against Armenians having anything to do with Europe. --Vonones 23:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been 2 RfCs on the subject on Armenia not being part of Europe, please review archives and cease disruptive edits--Caligvla 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminator, sorry this has carried over to your talk page...--Caligvla 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No that version has been there for months no one is claiming anything. --Vonones 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those RFC's established a consensus in your favor, Caligva, in fact, I remember just the opposite. Also, adding the same slanted information to an article 3 times in a row, despite it's hotly contested nature and the fact it failed more than one RFC also seems to a a violation of 3RR. The Myotis 00:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only see three reverts by me. --Vonones 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliminator, the same thing is happening again, the same IP adress that you warned 3 days ago again deleted a large sourced content and added POV pushing paragraphs into the article..[5] Does it not count as vandalism?--laertes d 08:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, however a new IP showed up and made the exact same edit again and deleted the sourced content, without any explanation..[6] I really find it hard to believe that all those IP's do belong to different persons..--laertes d 13:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to first off express my thanks for telling us that the page could be deleted before just deleting it, giving us a chance to find sources. Second I wanted to ask why it is necessary to have a third party source. Those are hard to find in this series, so I was just curious as to why it was necessary. Furthermore, hypothetically speaking, what if it had none? Would a noticeable series be removed if it had no third party sources?---Chipmonk328 8 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.107.129 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the article concerning hotelbobba was in fact deleted. Please could you help me with understanding the justifications. The entire purpose of the article was to highlight a website, in fact, it was to display a website related to Habbo Hotel retro servers; which there are none on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Joshilini 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think my page was deleted in "error" i am sure that u no what the page is cause u deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilaydyingfan1991 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see your closing decision in

---Text below copied from my talk page to avoid splitting the discussion---

No, that's fine - I was fully expecting it to go to DRV. I thought about it for a long time, and I can't see the long-term stand-alone notability here. I think it could be perfectly well covered by mentions in

ELIMINATORJR 21:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Your comment makes it sound like you are voting on the article, rather than evaluating the discussion. For example, you hung your hat on

WP:N certainly does not, so are you substituting your own personal views of news and notability for the community consensus expressed in these policies and guidelines? Dhaluza 21:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

AfD is not a vote. If it was, I would have probably closed the AfD as Merge. The problem was that most of the Keep votes hung on the phrase "well sourced", without much else to support the article. Whilst being well-sourced is undoubtedly a major part of a Wikipedia article, it is not the be-all and end-all. I could pick any random story out of one of today's Sunday newspapers, and know that I could source it from that, other papers and probably news websites. But how lasting is that notability? To quote WP:NOT, "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article ... timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews." As I said, perhaps consensus at DRV will lean to a re-listing or an overturn. That's fine, and shows our system is working.

ELIMINATORJR 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK: An editor has asked for a deletion review of 300-page iPhone bill. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dhaluza 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably still watching this but I feel this is just a ruse by editors to put the UB back in to this article by saying Linfield F.C. are a notable club who are not on this game sorry for bothering you with this but as you are aware and I have listened to your warnings and do not wish to get in to an edit war.BigDunc 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I don't have a lot of experience adding entries to wikipedia. You eliminated mine and redirected the small Notre Charge Apostolique entry to Pope Pius X article. I was wondering why because I actually point to the full encyclical on the internet in the Notre Charge ... entry whereas your redirection only points back to the Pope's article and provides no explanation of the encyclical at all. The whole thing got started because the Notre reference originally was just a red stub in the whore of Babylon article. Johnor 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought there doesn't seem to be much sense in pointing the encyclical back to Pope Pius X. That leads to having to click on the list of the encyclicals and when you click on the "notre..." encyclical it goes back to Pius X, in a loop that explains nothing. At least by making a few remarks about the encyclical and pointing to a website containing the full encyclical I've given more than what was there. If you don't like that solution, then it would be better to have nothing for the encyclical (not use the disambiguation for Pius X for it). Johnor 04:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to belabor this point but if you look at Vehementer Nos you will find that it is a stub that points to the full encyclical inside wikipedia. It is not that much longer than mine but it looks better and identifies itself as a stub. Doing it the way you are suggesting just makes no sense because there is already a section inside Pius X which clicks to a table of encyclicals. Most of those are just red stubs with nothing in them. If you want me to bring it up to the level of Vehementer Nos, I guess I can do that, but you are making it inconvenient to want to start a small article without the hassle of arguing about it at 5 times the work it would take to put the article in place. Johnor 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was in favor of keeping the image deleted at the DRV discussion, but the new version had what seemed to be a valid copyright status - formerly copyrighted, but copyright not renewed. Admittedly, I'm no expert on copyright, but the information at the new upload seemed credible to me. Do you know more than what I know that makes this upload invalid? Corvus cornix 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Time to ask about the copyright status of the image, and they responded it is copyrighted. See

CBM · talk) 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there. I saw you erased a message from my talk page from this user. I can understand why: it's a violation of rules against canvassing. However, I am surprised you needed to revert it. Also, it was too late: I ended up "voting" neutral anyway and commenting on his talk page. Thank you anyway for your concern. Bearian 00:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tags were removed because they are incorrect. They were put there by a BOT and are wrong. All those images already had the proper identifiers noting they are company logs which are allowed by wikipedia. thanks. Mobile 01^Talk 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your motivation after reading your message to the user on his talk page, I don't think it's appropriate to be reverting messages from other users on my talk page, barring vandalism or something posted in bad faith, neither of which applied in this case. Thanks. —

Hi Eliminator. I was thinking about withdrawing my nomination, but I don't really want to give the people opposing it the satisfaction. Even so, it has now descended into conspiracy theories that my nomination has been timed to coincide with Rosh HaShana, particularly ironic as my nominator, Y, is offline for a couple of days to celebrate it! I might be paranoid, but I am beginning to think there is a possibility that there was also some off-wiki campaigning by the Israel bunch, as two others who rarely vote in RfAs, but have previously voted in the opposite direction to me at contentious Israel-related AfDs (and one of whom was involved in the whole settlements in Israel debate) turned up to oppose too.

I hope whoever closes it (almost certainly as a fail now) takes into account the fact that some votes (e.g. BigDunc's) are based on fabrications and others are just malicious... Number 57 08:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me the Number 57 the fabrications I have made in opposing your nomination. I have not lied on this. And I dont like the assumption you have made here that I have. BigDunc 08:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement reads that I "did not give a constructive solution just stayed with his PoV". The diff I provided shows that I did not "stay with my POV" and that I did "give a constructive solution". As both parts of your statement are false, I don't think fabrication is too strong a word. Number 57 09:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are wrong there admin Alison protected the page on the 5th September you readded the flag on the 4th September without going to the talk page knowing (your words) 'certain people's distaste for it' you made your 'constructive solution' on the 4th and if you read down after the page was blocked I made the suggestion:
An option is to remove all the flags as per; Help the reader rather than decorate "Flag icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information in a general context, and is often simply distracting (example). Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustration." BigDunc 18:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
did not see you come running to back me up on this but you where quick to back up your friend admin EliminatorJR. You then accused UEFA the European governing body on soccer of being wrong. So where are my lies. BigDunc 10:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Eliminator for clogging up his talk page with this, but I will reply once more to BigDunc and leave it: I did not respond to your statement which you have copied above because you were using WP:FLAGS as if it is policy, rather than just the essay which it currently is. As for the "lies" I pointed out using the diff, I did offer a constructive solution (i.e. to remove all secondary flags rather than just the Northern Irish one), which is in direct opposition to your assertion that I did not offer do so. As for UEFA, they are frequently wrong and self-contradicting, but that is a different debate. Number 57 10:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Dunc, I'd never even met this editor before that issue on FIFA08, so he was hardly "backing his friend up". I suggest we leave this alone, we won't achieve anything more by starting another argument about something we've settled now.

ELIMINATORJR 10:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed and I am not being sarcastic here good luck with your request for admin 57.BigDunc 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You edited my talk page and removed a vote solicitation for the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik. I restored it, since I like to decide for myself what is on my talkpage (except for pure vandalism). I understand the problem with AFD canvassing,since only a microscopic portion of registered editors look at all AFDs every day as I do. But I recall a recent previous AFD !vote I made regarding this one-trick-pony publicity stunt by a non-notable individual at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill, wherein I noted that if someone asks for (or accepts the default of) a printed detailed bill, then makes thousands of text messages which she should have known would be necessarily included in said bill, it is hardly surprising or notable when the bill arrives. The article about the big phone bill was deleted as a result of the AFD, then restored after a DRV [7] in which many commentors called for the article about the woman (known only for the big phone bill) should be merged into the article about said bill. There is no reference to this previous AFD at the present AFD or at the article about the woman. Do you agree that it is acceptable to notify ALL those who have previously !voted in an AFD for the same or a closely related article, in a note which simply lets them know it is up for AFD (without suggesting how they should vote), and without cherry-picking Delete or Keep !voters? Thus the person who canvassed could in fact have notified me that the article was up for deletion, although with a different framing of the message. I notice when items are added to or removed from my talk page, so your deletion was ineffective in preventing my taking note of the AFD; a bell cannot be "un-rung" and the only real recourse is to punish the violator (noting whether his history indicates it was a naive violation by a new user or a deliberate violation) and to renominate it later if it was improperly kept, or to take it to DRV if it was improperly deleted. If you are concerned about canvassing, then please note that the US roads project created a newsletter on the spot when a couple of articles about highways were up for deletion and posted it on the talk pages of 200 editors [8], stating that these AFDs could lead to wholesale elimination of articles about roads. This form of canvassing has gone unchallenged, and I don't believe any article about a road whose AFD was mentioned in the newsletter has been deleted. Does a "newsletter" constitute canvassing in your view? How about a project page which has a list of AFDs related to the project? Or a user subpage which lists articles the user does not like,or their AFDs so that like-minded editors can all come trooping in on each AFD? Regards. Edison 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say a big thanks for reverting my page, I was just trying to figure what was going on then, though I, although I didn't see that as vandalism but I agree that afd subject is NN in an non-US way. Willirennen 23:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this change. It was contested, and should have been discussed on the talk page first. Thanks,

A couple things. First is that your comment makes you an "involved" participant in the discussion, and also makes me wonder at your

WP:CIVIL to you?) And more discussion on the talk would have been preferable (as I noted in my response), and I think that reverting sounds like a nominee for m:The Wrong Version

 : )

I had some enjoyment yesterday reading over

WP:LAME

. If we let it, this could easily qualify. Anyway, I won't bother contesting the reversion at this time, since, as far as the page location is concerned, I honestly have no real preference either way.

Anyway, Hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 21:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - apologies for the "ridiculous" - I probably meant something more like pointless, as I used in the edito summary. Thanks for taking it so well :)

ELIMINATORJR 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Nothing really to worry about. As it was, it's not as if the "discussion" at

What about bird and gun and...

") Shrugs. I'd personally have loved to see an actual citation showing notability above and beyond the rest of the Slayer references, that's typically the fastest way to sell me on something in a discussion : )

Anyway, while I appreciate the apology, no worries about your comment. Just continue on positively helping develop this thing we call Wikipedia : )

Have a great one. - jc37 08:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading