User talk:Black Kite/Archive 54

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Black Kite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ContentBridge merge

I think you've misread the conversation at AfD for ContentBridge. ContentBridge has nothing to do with Amplify (distributor) and the merge (still with opposition) suggested was to merge under a new article for the holding company GoDigital Media Group. ContentBridge has nothing to do with Amplify (distributor), I don't even think that they have any personnel in common. The proposed action will create completely inaccurate information and I will have to contest.009o9 (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please feel free to suggest an alternative target (I have updated the AfD close). There does seem to be general consensus that this cannot be stand-alone, though. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the less than unanimous "consensus" has more to do with my paid-editing disclosure than the content of the article and there has been an instance of canvassing with the paid editing prominent in the communication(s).

The ContentBridge company spokesperson, in this case the CEO, is featured in Variety and Billboard Magazine concerning the media-management topic, and a startup-pitch discussion, published by This Week in Startups, with additional support from specialty publishers gave me plenty of support to provide deep-coverage. I feel, these references give the subject extraordinary notability for a back-end provider -- other editors seem to think that every reference must go to notability, which is not my reading of the Policies and Guidelines. The nitpicking now is that I have a press-release to establish a trivial date, as if Reuters has no editorial control over the press-releases it publishes. I've bent over backwards, rearranging, removing content and section headings to improve flow and any appearance of advertising (talk page version). The firm does not need advertising anyway, they are already a (or the) provider for all the major players. Thanks 009o9 (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've updated the talk page on Amplify (distributor). Not sure how to proceed, I'm inclined to create the GoDigital Media Group article and do the merge myself rather than creating walls of text explaining the corporate relationships. Would I be premature in starting this? 009o9 (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Toronto mayoral election articles

I see you've closed the recent Toronto mayoral AfD as delete. Since all of the articles have been removed now, would you please consider emailing me the content of the deleted pages so I can work the useful content into the main article? Or userfy if you think that's more appropriate. If I need to get in touch with the admins who actually did the deleting I will, just let me know. The pages are:

• Olivia Chow mayoral campaign, 2014
• Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014
• David Soknacki mayoral campaign, 2014
• Karen Stintz mayoral campaign, 2014
• John Tory mayoral campaign, 2014

Thanks! Ivanvector (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've userfied four of them to User:Ivanvector/xxxx (see my contribs). The Karen Stintz one has already been redirected to her article which still exists. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Will tag for speedy when I'm done. Odd that just the one redirect survived. Ivanvector (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Gee, what a surprise...

And a rather arbitrary one, at that. - ^theWOLFchild 09:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Um ... it's a comment, not a request for admin help ... so it goes on the talkpage. No big deal. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello. You blocked 46.208.86.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for vandalism and block evasion yesterday, well he's back, now as 87.115.109.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Same ISP, same geolocation and same reverts, following TheRedPenOfDoom around and reverting him. Thomas.W ^talk 11:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#Michael and Marisa

Hi Black Kite. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael and Marisa (2nd nomination). Tuesday536 (talk · contribs) took the AfD to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#Michael and Marisa but forgot to notify you. Cunard (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Pick your brain on an AFD close

I was wondering if you'd mind expanding on your reasoning closing this article's deletion discussion as "merge"? I don't have a big issue with it or anything, I'm just curious. In the past, I've always felt like discussions that were so clearly divided usually defaulted to "no consensus", so I was just wondering if you'd be willing to expand on the reasoning you wrote about in the close. LHM^{ask me a question} 07:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

We've not interacted much, I don't think. But I am enjoying your comments on Corbett's talk page. Grab your popcorn, looks like the show is getting better with every passing hour... Montanabw^(talk) 00:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Responding to stale 3RR you closed

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive246#User:Dougweller_reported_by_User:75.73.22.81_.28Result:_stale.29

Sorry for not responding initially. I felt my argument was based strongly enough but apparently you are only concerned about sources.

So let's talk about sources. Here is the source claimed currently in use:

Comment by JJ: the Hanyok-source comments to this telegram as follows (p.80): "January 1943 message listing number of Jews killed as part of operation Reinhard". Your personal interpretation is WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to that document. I took the liberty of taking a screenshot of the page in question with the referenced section of text highlighted. You will note the referenced text is not in the body of the text. It is an image caption with a reference. That Wikipedia would cite an image caption is insulting enough, but the gall to call something that is clearly a reference a source indicates just how pathetic the academic standards are at Wikipedia.

But we're not talking about your pseudo-intellectualism. We're talking about sources.

Here is a screenshot of the footnote from the Hanyok text. It references A New Document on the Deportation and Murder of Jews during 'Einsatz Reinhardt' 1942 by Peter Witte and Stephen Tyas for analysis of the primary source document in question. Here is a screenshot of their original translation with the word "arrivals" highlighted in bright pink so you can't miss it.

So it turns out the very source Joshua Jonathan and Dougweller rely upon for their erroneous claim made the exact same translation I pointed out.

But wait, there's more!

If you click on the

in the article in dispute, you now find its English translation which reads, according to wikisource, "Telegram from deputy commander of Aktion Reinhard, listing number of arrivals in the extermination camps." Here is a screenshot with bright pink highlighting in case you have trouble reading.

So tell me, which one of us appears not to grasp the issue that you rely on your sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.22.81 (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

List of scouting troops and service units

Your "Delete" close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scouting troops and service units is actually IMO not the correct way to go. Yes there were 5 delete votes but all were before the list-article was substantially edited by me and others, and most/all of the delete rationales no longer would be supportable. Could you please provide a copy of the article, including all history, to my User-space? I expect then to pursue deletion review. Thanks. --doncram 09:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I was elsewhere referred to wp:refund and an admin there userified a copy to me. thanks. --doncram 22:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

request to reverse or re-open AFD on scouting troops list

Hi, i'm back. Could you please consider reversing your closing decision (delete) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scouting troops and service units, or re-open the discussion to allow it to continue and/or have a different close? Or explain your close further? I do think your assessment that there was a fairly clear consensus to delete, was incorrect; i actually thought it was ready to be closed as Keep! Some points:

• In the AFD, there was the nomination then 4 Delete votes, then my Keep vote, then 2 more Delete votes. Then I edited the article considerably, and others helped. And one of the Delete voters switched vote to Keep instead. One of the contributors in developing the article, User:Bduke, hadn't yet changed their Delete vote, but their contributions to the article and their further comments in the AFD were favorable. I believe the nominator and the other 3 remaining Delete voters did not reconsider their votes, after the article changed hugely. So of voters who commented after the big changes, it was 2 Keeps to 1 Delete on the record (Bduke's). The article is now at User:Doncram/List of scouting troops and service units and Bduke made one additional comment there, favorable to taking the list further with revisions, at its Talk page User talk:Doncram/List of scouting troops and service units.
• Also, a close is supposed to consider the quality of the arguments, not just go with the numbers of votes, and as I pointed out in the AFD, there were Delete votes whose reasons didn't make sense.

I noticed elsewhere that you are perhaps busy within your Wikipedia time on other issues (arb case, JW talk page), so I don't want to imply that i expect too much. If you don't want to discuss or to reopen, please say so, and i could take it to Deletion Review instead. But I have to at least try to discuss it with you first, per guidelines at wp:Deletion review, and I really would appreciate your further consideration here. --doncram 21:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry I've been been busy IRL. I don't really think I could have closed that any other way; on pure number there were two keeps and six deletes, but whilst some of the Deletes were a bit thin I couldn't really see that I could discount them. Please feel free to take it to WP:DRV - it's a habitual hazard for admins like me who close the "tricky" ones at the end of a day's listing! Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

With all those Name Defend editors would it be possible to get a CU to see if they have a common IP to block account creation (on the chance they're doing this from whatever office they work from). Amortias (T)(C) 19:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see why not, actually. Given that they're actually threatening editors who revert/block them, I suspect that would be well within CU remit. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thought as much, any idea how we'd raise this sort of request with a check-user? Amortias (T)(C) 20:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply raise a sockpuppet report at WP:SPI for the master account, and explain your reason for doing it. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

Hello Black Kite, perhaps you should also delete the redirect Social Justice Warriors (SJW) after deleting Social justice warrior? Looks like more unnecessary MRA/Gator stuff. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

PROD on Social justice warrior

Just a technicality, your deletion log note in Social justice warrior: "Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable neologism" can't be right because the PROD was put just yesterday and the PROD expiration is 7 days. But it probably was non-notable. --Pudeo' 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I see what's happened. The PROD was placed on September 28th (when the article was called Social Justice Warriors (SJW)) but then removed by another editor on October 4th. An IP then put the PROD back, not by adding a new PROD tag but by restoring the old one (which of course still had the old date on, which is what I saw). It should have gone to AfD really, but I'm unconvinced that would be useful. Any editor can always ask for it to be restored at WP:REFUND. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, perhaps one editor wanted to contest it but didn't do it the right way and then the restorer didn't follow 'protocol' either. Atleast I'm not going to request undeletion. :)--Pudeo' 10:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Um What?

Thanks for completed the AfD for me for Vern Hughes, but why did you remove the other tags as well? They should have stayed. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oops sorry, my mistake, I reverted back one revision not realising that one had restored the tags as well as adding the AfD. Fixed now. Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We've got a problem it appears. Some guy called GaryColemanFan is making false accusations against me. I've had a look at the issue and it seems this stems from him accusing every Australian IP of being this Justa Punk fellow. I originally thought it was a COI issue that had already been IDed within the Vern Hughes article but now I'm not so sure. I would appreciate some admin help here. I've already defended myself on the sock puppet investigation and I think it would be appropriate if he was blocked for template abuse and vandalism by interfering with the AfD. Thanks. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was told during your three April AfDs that I should have asked for speedy deletion at the outset. That's what I have done. I think the edit history, phrasing, AfD requests, and similarity to IP 124.180.170.151 make this a clear case of sockpuppetry. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Who's AfDs? Did that IP do any political editing? No. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not letting it go

I nearly reverted GaryColemanFan's most recent edit at the Vern Hughes AfD, because he is just totally ignoring you and showing more paranoia. Besides, it's not SOP to run this issue on the AfD is it? May I suggest that you revert it and warn him? Also, I suspect that his attempt at speedy deleting the AfD in the first place was also not SOP (slapping a template on the AfD) and in that case his edits are what I said they were to begin with - vandalism. He's the one being problematic here and a stint on the sidelines to cool off might be in order here. I don't think he's contributing to the community in his present frame of mind. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Page Deleted

Hello Black Kite,

The page Kim Beasley was just deleted within the last hour and would like to know why it was deleted? We have corrected all of the errors that were on the page within the last 24 hours, I know all the errors were corrected. Kim Beasley does not use her Wiki page for advertising. It was about her life, her schooling, her career, and her success. So people can read about her, find out who she is and what she has accomplished over the years. We worked really hard to fix errors to keep her page up. Everytime errors were fixed someone would go back in and reverse the changes we made. Can you please assist me with this and is there any way to undo the deletion of this page? Thank you.

Virtualassistexpert (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that the sources have to be either reliable (so not Youtube or anything else user-generated), they also need to be secondary sources (so not her website), and they need to be significant (i.e. they don't just mention her in passing, but are article about her). If you would like me to undelete the page and place it in a draft so you can work on it, please let me know here. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo

Hi, BK, I just noticed your "sod it" post on Eric Corbett's page. I don't know if you're aware that John warned Jimbo on October 3 against "repeatedly attacking and making allegations against an editor who is forbidden to post here, and refusing to provide evidence when asked", calling it "definitely worthy of a block". So he's been warned all right. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

• See ANI. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is shite. This is JW coming out of the closet and declaring that he doesn't need any more content thanks, got enough of that. He wants 'civil' people who will argue amongst themselves about existing stuff in fine detail until they all fuck off to Wikia (which does, after all, earn) and build that up. People who research, and write, and care about a subject can bugger off unless they can maintain a veneer of faux civility. Jimbo Wales should have backed off after his silly block of Bishonen. Plot? Lost.  pablo 19:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The "alleged good content" is the primary reason why I've been outspoken on this aside from the concern that he's entirely into civility nowadays, content doesn't matter anymore. It pisses me off immensely that somebody who frankly contributes nothing to the actual encyclopedia itself as a resource can dismiss that level of contributing over a long time purely because he dislikes the person. I hadn't watched Jimbo's talk page for years because I never got a response and was unimpressed with him, but that "alleged" remark really struck a raw nerve and explains why of late I've been outspoken against him. Does he have any idea how long it takes to write a featured article and go through the process and to do that 49 times? And we do this for free... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well said, Dr. Blofeld. I could go much further but it may be best not to, for now. But if this behaviour was to be continued I think a short sharp block might be in order, followed by a RFAR to clarify the position going forwards. No matter how illustrious the past history of an editor they should not be allowed to disrupt the work of content editors in this way. Lessons need to be learned on all sides, but I think it's a shame if the troller walks away unpunished, while the trollee is blocked. --John (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's weird but there's this general deadly silence right now around my user talk page, I get the impression that a lot more people are more fully into Jimbo than I'd thought. It's sort of like "how dare you say anything but nice things about the God-King". I'd expected a lot more support. Perhaps people are silently thinking the same thing, who knows..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

TPS. FWIW, Dr B, I think there's a vanishingly small group that wholeheartedly agree with you. There's a vanishingly small group that wholeheartedly disagree with you. There's a large group that think there are points on both "sides" and no one's right. And there's a vast multitude who think the whole discussion is utterly irrelevant to their involvement in WP. DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words a war between two sides of editors? Those who support Jimbo and those who don't? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Another TPS: Unlikely to be a "war" when, as DeCausa says, the overwhelming majority carry on regardless, and both the opposing "sides" come to realise that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: If it is not a war then it sure feels like it, I have seen a lot in the past few days that has been disturbing to me. There are editors firmly entrenched into their positions who are trying to get others to see it their way, right now maybe it isn't bad but it can get a lot worse. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could lend me a hand

Hi, perhaps you don't remember me but im an editor that has already been involved with you, i contact you because I am having problems again with a editor called AbelM7 that was involved with you aswell (already reported his behavoir before ) again, he is editing military related articles in a biased manner again and keeps removing completely valid information again, when i explain on his talk page and on the edit summaries why that information must be included and inclusive is more valid than information already there he ignores it and keeps removing it. He shows no signs of going to stop by himself (it always takes to drag administrators and a big number of editors to make him drop an issue) and I don't want to get in a edit war with him again (both have been blocked before for doing it), you can scroll through the history and diffs of his talk page and he is always fighting with other editors because he keeps removing or adding information just because he wants it regardless of what sources say (and he was blocked just two weeks ago for edit warring ). Can you lend me a hand here? What do you think must be done to make him stop behaving that way once for all? HMWD (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil topic ban discussion

Hi, I think you may have inadvertently edited out my comment on the noticeboard discussion. Dyrnych (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh damn, sorry, that often happens on ANI when lots of people are trying to edit at the same time. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed now. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I've done the same thing. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)