User talk:Black Kite/Archive14

Hello, I noticed you've protected the article

I'd like some guidance towards how to get rid of the NPOV and COI tags on my page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Public_School_Employers%27_Association). In December, you deemed my article was appropriate to keep, with other assistants adding however, that it needed some work. I've made some considerable revisions to the content of the article based on the wiki tutorials, but i'm not sure whether or not i've completely resolved the issues. I'm trying to orient myself with wiki's policies as quickly as possible and remove those tags.

Thank you very much!

Kcbroadway (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking to ask an admin for some input advice, and you won, so congratulations! I've been keeping an eye on the William Schnoebelen article. He is a very controversal figure who has claimed to be numerous things but no other sources can confirm. I went thru the article and citated where we needed citations. However, no one else, and I just looked, could or has found any sources to confirm any of the things he states that he is. He is a living person. Personally, I'm not sure he is notable enough to be on the wiki (considering the only sources seem to be from his own group), but if he is, how do we go about a BLP with sketchy information like that? Thoughs/Suggestions? Hooper (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, I noticed you reverted some IP edits at ANI. Perhaps you should consider filing a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dhirrosses the new account. registered today, 3 edits. all edits accusing me of being a sockpuppet.

see ya Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was quick Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Black Night,

DO NOT FRET!!!. I am aware of that fact and as we speak I am trying to factor it in! The problem was that it was facing out of the article, something that FAC don't like, and if i'd moved it to the right it would have buggered up the layout because of the infobox. When I get around to re-writing the opening paragraphs, it may well be able to be incorporated!

There are several others I also want to get in, including the Police liveried one!

Thanks, and I hope this clears things up,

May I ask how it relates specifically to that section?

If it must go in, then i'll wait until i've expanded the intro etc, to not bugger up the layout!

Thanks,

BG7 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well let me expand the lead and those paragraphs, and then i'll have a look. Oh and BTW contemporary is modern - we have lots of those!

Would you prefer it if I did the work in my sandbox?

BG7 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok i'll finish my current edit and then i'll sandbox it. It'll be at User:Bluegoblin7/Sandbox7.

Thanks,

BG7 00:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry but I fail to see how that is relevant to the lead. I have reverted it. A lead should draw in readers without big technical terms - we don't want them to switch off because of it - it is much easier to list this in the section about the origins.

I do not want to get into an edit war over this, however I fail to see how the type of engine it has is "one of the most important pieces of information" - maybe to an enthusiast, but not to the casual reader. Who cares whether Deltics had Napiers or a different sort - it's an engine for god sake!

BG7 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Lady Aleena's RfA

Black Kite...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 05:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubs episodes

Probably unreasonable of me to ask you to protect all the Scrubs episodes in advance, but your input here might help avoid future trouble.Kww (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance, please. Do you think ANI would actually be effective? If so, how would you approach it to keep it from blowing up in my face?Kww (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Hello,

Regards this diff to your talk page archive, I was wondering if you could supply the initial context, post or talk page that prompted the comment? There is currently a RFC on GDB. Thanks, WLU (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Ebay scam this hoax article was intended to support actually provides a link back to the article. I have therefore recreated it, temporarily, as a warning to any hopeful buyers that it was deleted as a blatant hoax. I think it should stay until after May 3 when the Ebay auction closes.I hope you approve: if not, please re-delete it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - DrHaroldForsythe (talk · contribs) who I think created the original article, promptly blanked my warning; Cluebot has restored it, but perhaps you could keep an eye on it - it's bed-time here. JohnCD (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem mate, everyone makes mistake here & there. Nonetheless, we all try to keep wikipedia place as more accurate & up to date as possible. Cheers :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viva69 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mordor edited article about the NOP by his personal beliefs which has nothing to do with Wikipedia's NPOV Policy. Citating point of view only of Jewish sites aren't really NPOV. I made a topic on NOP's article talk page but Mordor just wrote "i don't need any permission to edit article however I want" so I'm sorry but I will never agree with his own imaginary art.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BK

I wonder whether you'd mind casting your eyes over the images in The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess, which is a nomination for FA status. As usual, no reviewer has even mentioned NFC. I just want to learn more about policing the NFC free-reign in FAs by seeing someone in flight <grin>.

The nomination page is at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess#The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess. Tony (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been addressed. Please respond.

talk) 01:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Done again

talk) 18:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Done

talk) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Usually we don't do that -- see

"Terima kasih" — your support is appreciated. FYI, here you undid some good changes to the code; float:center; is completely invalid, for example.

<div style="clear:both;"></div> is a good thing to have in there, too; that you're not seeing the need indicates to me that you're using Internet Explorer; there are several browsers out there that are far superior (and don't incorrectly handle containing of child elements).

Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 11:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Kite, for showing how we might tighten up our reviewing of Criterion 3 of the Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria. Hardly anyone knows or cares about NFC at FAC, and that seems like an excellent place to make contributors at large care about it, since the FA process has wide implications through the project. Tony (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Black Kite; I just want to add my voice to the chorus of thanks for reviewing at

WP:FAC. Tony1 wasn't completely correct that "hardly anyone cares"; Elcobbola (talk · contribs) has been trying to do it all alone, and that's a lot of work and little gratitude. Many of us would be very grateful if you continue to pitch in, help out, and lighten the load on Elcobbola. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Black Kite, would you mind weighing in regarding the possible image issues at this FAC? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments, Black Kite. We'd appreciate if you'd check back on the article and nom and let us know if we've adequately addressed your concerns. Thanks - auburnpilot talk 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6] - please do not add me to this list. You either did it deliberately (in which case, don't), or, more likely, by accident (in which case, a) how? and b) please be careful in future). Thanks.

I didn't think you would have done it deliberately. No worries.

☎ 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I left u a mssg last night about my deleted article, Gabriel Ribadu, can you send me a copy pls.Thank you. Email is [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukmon Akim (talk • contribs) 09:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Lukmon Akim (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)).Thanks[reply]

Thanks so much Black Kite. what do u suggest i do to the article now,pls advise.Lukmon Akim (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Good article talk page, for your convenience.

No, the 2nd image does not fail NFCC Criterion 8. That image shows the character's opening scene, which was widely discussed in the media, that image is a screenshot from the scene. I'd gladly provide a quote from the New York Times. Additionally, I'd note NFCC Criterion 8 is under dispute as a policy, therefore applying it is, disputed. For clarification, from the New York Times, though reading the article would show this content anyway

That's why I said 99% sure. I was fairly certain, I must have overlooked it. It's in the critical reception section, here. The third image I'll be uploading won't be a direct quote from the media, although it was mentioned in them, (see ref 19), the text I'm referring to is

Hi, I was reviewing the Zelda Ocarina of Time FAC and I asked them to add an image of the gold cartridge because after reading about it, I was interested in seeing it. One editor told me you had him take it out because of fair use concerns. My question is.. wouldn't a photograph a person took of their game cartridge be a free image? The person who uploaded it specified that they "scanned it"; I'm assuming that means they placed their game on a scanner. Wouldn't that be a derivative work and a free license? --Laser brain (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I was reading our image use police and it states: "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright ..." Wouldn't that apply to the photograph of the Nintendo cartridge? --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in obtaining a copy of my page World of runes which has been deleted. Please get back to me as soon as possible. Thank you. Dagmon (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Dagmon[reply]

I noticed you deleted the main article in this Afd but left the other three. Did you forget to delete the other articles? ~ Eóin (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I did. Thanks for the heads up. Black Kite 06:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised about your decision, I ask you to kindly reestablish the article and, if necessary, move it to the

• Userfied for improvement - see your talk. Black Kite 18:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your edit on my talk page, the ANI discussion has been removed, so I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make the other image look as encyclopedic as possible by displaying the emotion in her face. This I believe conveys a lot more to the reader and demonstrates what is there in the text I think. I have found some free images that I've added also and must have removed about 15 commas in total from the article. Any ideas for further improvements?

   * Have you ensured that the copyright holder has given permission to release these under a free licence (either public domain, cc-by, cc-by-sa, or, preferably, GFDL.
   * Have you sent confirmation of those permissions to [email protected]

As re. #1, the game's copyright has reverted to its author, and he's given me explicit permission to use these images for this article. I can forward the email if you need.

For the second, I hadn't sent confirmation there, but I have now.

Peyre (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jesus hair could go now. The bots are starting to worry about it being orphaned and uncategorised. I followed the auction with interest - it got 5 bids and sold for $127.50

I thought he would remove the link from Ebay to the article, but no: he left it, but added:

"Unfortunally the wikipedia article from Dr.Forsythe was taken down, luckily I saved it after i had found it.... So I am going to post it right here.... "

and then put the full text, and then:

"After reading the last part of the article i guess we all know why it has been deleted... "

The last part of the article was about how the Catholic Church wanted to keep it hidden for fear of undermining the power of the Pope. So we are part of the conspiracy. See you back in the Vatican... Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the anti-Liverpool IP vandal is active again; I don't want to get snagged for 3RR so maybe do zap him? Regards Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I know you're more of an image deletionist, and you occasionally edit Stargate articles. If you have a few minutes, could you have a look at Vala Mal Doran and give me your honest opinion about the need for the second image (Image:Stargate SG-1 Robert C. Cooper and Claudia Black in Crusade.JPG)? The paragraph next to it (beginning with "Claudia Black was brought back into the show") and the a few sentences in a paragraph below describing the relationship between Vala and her daughter are the only thing that really support the image. The main plus of the image is it's showing the actress pregnant, she's not as sexily dressed as usual, this promo photo is comparibly unknown, and it has a real-world perspective instead of an in-universe one. But I am still struggling with the decision whether the image really helps with understanding the character better, or whether it's just decorative. Advice from an uninvolved editor would help. (The other two images are fine, I think.) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have erred in the way you closed the deletion discussion. There was not a consensus to delete. Would you please restore the article? --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Tobasco Donkeys. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--evrik ^(talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a heads up that Geoff Barrow appears to be having a slightly tough time wrestling with his own article. See user contribs for User talk:82.46.88.99. I've removed the 3 uw-test warnings, and left a very short note, at that talkpage. I'm not sure whether that was handled in the best way possible, but was unsure what other action to take. I thought you might have better advice (for him or me!); or just be able to keep an additional eye out for him. Please feel free to replace/fix my note at his talkpage. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you must be my go-to admin for questions as this is my second (or it could be that I remember your username easier then some of the other admins running around). Another user, User:RucasHost appears to be on a wikicrusade of sorts. I recently reverted a few of his latest edits as they appear to be ways to subliminally promote his views, and I made sure to tell him on his talk page so he knew. I just wanted to know, checking my contribs and my description of the revert and the diffs themself if you would agree that I perceived right or if it was wrong. Just wanted to get a second opinion. Thanks. Hooper (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again and thanks for the Vala Mal Doran image review; I'll wait until Stargate: Continuum gets released for possible better images before I remove the questionable one. Anyway, User:SandyGeorgia has suggested in my FAC for Characters of Carnivàle to ask you for an image check of that article. I believe each image is justified (I won't wikilayer about keeping them though if people disgree), and have already expanded the FURs of each one again. I have copy-pasted/summarized the relevant critical commentary of the article for each image at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Characters of Carnivàle (beginning with "I'll go over the image FURs again") so that other people don't have to read the whole article. I hope you can help out. Thanks, – sgeureka ^t•c 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have reverted my edits on National Revival of Poland because of "removal of sourced information". I have removed nothing (on the contrary, I added informations), but moved allegations of anti-Semitism to "criticism" section. Puark (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't wrote it, but this is an IP adress (91.94.36.37). Puark (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Puark (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at

Could I ask you to fix a slight error on my part please. The article Lists of Mayors of Paducah, Kentucky should be renamed to List of mayors of Paducah, Kentucky to conform with the standard of all Lists of Mayors on the Lists of Mayors page? Thanks. Hooper (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You must of been online. Thanks alot. However, one thing, and sorry again. If it is supposed to be the way other articles are, it should be List of... not Lists of..... Sorry, my mistake and all the work because of it. Just didn't want to do it differently then otehrs. Hooper (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you say that I can clearly see the Move tab there. Wow. Completely missed that. Thanks. Hooper (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was directed here to ask you about whether there are to many images to the given article as we are currently checking detail before nominating for FA status. Personally I know other game articles with more but of course I might aswell ask, cheers.

The way you worded that kind of implies that none of the images are good. I don't know where to get more given the somewhat picky nature of wiki.

talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your comments on the Admin page. I'm doing my best to cope with a very frustrating situation and to be honest there are times, like yesterday and today, when I feel like tearing my hair out. I'm sat here in my wee office with a copy of the official history of the regiment and loads of links for sources and I've just spent two days watching several other editors trash the work I've done with no real or apparant reason. Yes there may have been some mistakes in the copy, a link wrong here or there, perhaps a line or two needing changed, but nothing I can see which (by my logic anyway) should have provoked such a strong resentment against the article or me. It's all this nonsense about the Northern Ireland Troubles, which I'm no stranger to, but want no part of. Any help I get from other editors like you is very much appreciated and that doesn't just apply to this one article. I'm still fairly new and struggling with a lot of the conventions so when someone does step in with good constructive criticsim or advice/assistance I am really grateful.GDD1000 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you are an expert at using fair use images and such in articles, I was wondering what the policy is on using free images in an article? What I want to know is, if I've got an article with a lot of free images available for it, should I use them only when I need them to further illustrate a point (basically, the same as Fair Use images), or use them in a decorative manner? Personally, I feel like I should still go with the former since there is no point to have images that don't add anything extra, but I'd like to know your thoughts.

• Don't worry about the above, I raised it at WP:AN and the template experts are fixing it - it was indeed deeper in the template system. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fix this dont know what happened here I was trying to post but very slow connection at the moment and seems to have messed up sorry BigDunc^Talk 20:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite it wasn't vandalism dont know what jhappened and my post has now appeared. BigDunc^Talk 20:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I explained several times that the images couldn't be used there, but he ignored everything I said. If he choose to personalise every action that an editor takes (and claim my edits are vandalism) then it is not helping the situation.BigDunc^Talk 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's just that he clearly didn't understand WP:NFCC#9 (let's face it, a lot of people don't) so he thought you were harrassing him because you'd had a run-in on the main article. I'd suggest everyone just steps away from it for a while. Black Kite 21:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PP is in place now so should settle down thanks. BigDunc^Talk 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Feel free to comment. Kww (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much of an edit war going on at the time of its protection (and the issues raised then are being discussed elsewhere in earnest). The policy gets a lot of uncontroversial editing on a regular basis; we should allow that to resume.--Father Goose (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need help. The Camp Avoda article has a huge, unreferenced table of non-notable people under the Color War section, which I have tried, first, to put an unreferenced tag on , and then secondly, to remove, but I'm in an edit war with two different anons, one of whom keeps removing the unreferenced tag and one of whom keeps reverting my removal of the table. Do you think it would be worthwhile to try dispute resolution with anons? Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I expect to see it back again. I was trying to get a discussion going on the talk page, but nobody responded. Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was right. It got reverted. Corvus cornix_talk 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. I won't fight you. You may want to contact the blocking admin, and discuss it with them first. But you'll get no objections from me... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate very much your contacting me, although I think you were a little quick to assume I had gone off line -I am getting children ready for school. I am happy to live with your decision. However I think you should note that
  • The block had been reviewed by Jayron32
  • The user was reported by the other editor (who I also blocked)
  • I found it very difficult to explain my actions to the editor with constant edit conflicts and I found he was disrepectful of my decision note edit summary
  • Other editors agreed he was edit warring (Gwen Gale was also in favour of placing the tags) [7] [8]

--Matilda ^talk 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think for your pains it is only fair you should review User talk:Wfgh66 too --Matilda ^talk 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already (IMO) edit warring on Pierre Plantard. I'll stop editing [that article] myself for today... Wednesday Next (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that Wednesday Next couldn't help himself - it actually takes two to edit war and the article history at Pierre Plantard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows that they both took up almost immediately where the block left them. Neither editor learned from the experience, both appear by their actions largely unrepentant. For example it would have been appropriate if Wednesday Next had found another article to edit and left the "good fight" to Loremaster who was active in the article at the time. It would have been appropriate if Wfgh66 didn't take up where he left off also and tried to edit without reverting other people or adding in contentious material. Matilda ^talk 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda, we both stopped and started to discuss, so I don't see what your problem with us is... Wednesday Next (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I supply the major sources for the Priory of Sion and Pierre Plantard articles. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment on this. Damn, I'm pissed. Kww (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. Is there any way I can persuade you otherwise?Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing. I had actually hit rollback by mistake after he issued that veiled threat to an admin, but I guess that's OK, as you did likewise with his juvenile comment to me. I just happened to be watching him from an earlier incident, so I thought it best to turn him in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, coudl you audit the images on Crackdown for it's FAC? I believe they are good, but Tony's asking for an audit and I know you're generally trusted in that area for FACs. --MASEM 15:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the participants of this AfD listed above has just been blocked as a ban evading sockpuppet of arbitration committe banned editor Eyrian. He commented at least three times in it. As I do not think it appropriate that we should humor banned editors, I recommend relisting this AfDs and perhaps at least striking his comments. Sincerely, --

]

MFD note re: Talk:The weather in London

Following the

wheel 1, and a DRV; Talk:The weather in London is back at MFD again. If you are still interested in this page, please join in the discussion at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:The weather in London 2. (Note: notice sent to all editors of the first MFD that have not already been come in the new MFD.) Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

my RfA - Ta!