User talk:Black Kite/Archive 44

Closing the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles RfC

Although it says that you are withdrawing your services as an admin, I was wondering if you would consider wrapping up some unfinished business: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles#Closing this RfC Kaldari (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier

I understand given the notice at the top of this page you may not be interested in this, but given the log page (here) I thought I would let you know in case you want to CSD G4 it. Mtking ^(edits) 08:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Completely uninterested in what the fanboys want to put up. If they restore it as a stand-alone article though, I will G4 it. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar of common sense

For rev'deling the wheelchair insults. Nobody Ent 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly seconded. I should have done it myself in the first place, but RevDel's such a touchy subject... Thank you for stepping in and doing the right thing. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Roger (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thirded. I am stunned. -Fjozk (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians

You joined the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I remember halloween

Back in May you blocked I remember halloween (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for Personal attacks or harassment, would you mind having a look at some of his recent contributions such as this and this, the later is interesting as it adds further to my gut feeling that this editor who has only been about since May is yet another MMA sock further evidenced by their sixth edit (excluding deleted) where they talk as if they have been editing for a while I just have not been able to work out which other editor it is. Mtking ^(edits) 23:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida

An editor has asked for a deletion review of UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 19:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics BLP fiasco

Thanks for the quick actions on that. I left a note at bottom of WP:AN3#LittleBenW that might need consideration, given the user's particular history (short version: It's the diacritics topic itself, not the BLP talk page. really - he doesn't care what page he brings it up on - he's been tendentious and disruptive on this "issue" for several years). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

LittleBenW

Hi BK, would you consider unblocking Ben with a warning to tone things down? I saw him reverting a fair bit on his BLP RfC, but users are normally given wide leeway to refactor RfCs that they have opened, and people were posting quite aggressively, which was upsetting him. It's true that the RfC was poorly formatted and had no chance of success. I see he has a new one prepared at User:LittleBenW/Diacritics, which is at least easy to read, though I would say it also has no chance. Perhaps you could unblock him if he agrees to stay away from the diacritics issue for a while once his new RfC is over? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be an option, but looking at the big picture I think the problem is more widespread than just that RFC. I'm posting on my phone at the moment though so I'll have a look when I get home. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it again there are far more issues here - 3RR, blind reverting, calling people who he disagrees with "vandals", forum shopping and inability to work constructively with others... and I'm only half way down the list of diffs. I think the best plan might be to wait for any unblock request and see if he engages constructively, because I suspect that a huge laundry list of "things you shouldn't be doing" might not go down well with him. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Are all these issues related to that RfC, or are there similar issues unrelated it? I've been in the situation many times of trying to refactor a sprawling RfC, and it's very frustrating when people revert when you're in the middle of it, or go off on tangents so that the discussion is derailed. Given that he had created a monster of an RfC in the first place, he must have felt like he was wrestling with an octopus. I wonder whether you'd consider ignoring anything RfC-related, making sure he understands that it can't happen again, and advising him to let diacritics rest for at least a year after his shorter RfC closes (or even asking him to abandon the shorter RfC too). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No, this particular RFC is only a part of it, have a look through the links at AN3. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Politicized edit warring

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible legal threats on Talk: Rotherham by-election, 2012
• Talk:Rotherham by-election, 2012#Politicized edit warring
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Politicized edit warring
• Talk:UK Independence Party#Fostering row

You've been involved in such things in the past, as I recall. You might like to review this little lot. There might be a flare up tomorrow. After all, isn't Sunday the day when everyone in the U.K. sits around and talks religion and politics? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, you did the right thing there; the story doesn't belong in the by-election article, if belongs anywhere it's in the UKIP article, mind you that's not the gretest article in the world either. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • To attempt to address another outstanding matter at Talk:UK Independence Party, I had a modest go at replacing content sourced to a Google search page, of all things, with content sourced to a political science textbook from Edinburgh University Press, amongst others. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

LittleBenW again

WP:ANI#User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Chipping in

Of course I don't mind. Not only do I welcome it, I deeply appreciate it. This is the largest project I've ever attempted but I know I can't do it alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• No problem, it's a really good article. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User recovery eng

Template:User recovery eng has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw that! :)

Suppressed now :) - Alison ^❤ 20:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts.
Message added 19:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Mike Christian

You closed the AfD as I was writing my comment. I put the comment inside the archive box. Hope you don't mind even though it was added technically after you closed it but I think it's a valid argument about whether being on the show made him a celebrity or not should the article be nominated again and previously arguments referenced. Mkdw^talk 10:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:ChildofMidnight/The Gelato Fiasco

User:ChildofMidnight/The Gelato Fiasco, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/The Gelato Fiasco and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ChildofMidnight/The Gelato Fiasco during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

POV editor

Hello Black Kite; as a administrator who has come across User:Zaalbar before, could you please keep an eye on him? He's been going around Wikipedia making all sorts of POV edits which have been reverted by several editors, but many of the minor ones are often not notified. Please take appropiate action if he continues his blanket POV editing across WP. Thank you. --Grotekennis (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And now User:Belchfire is placing those POV edits back in. --Grotekennis (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how these disruptive edits by Zaalbar and their reinstatement by Belchfire should be dealt with. Since you're an administrator and much more experienced editor I'll leave that up to you. Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to you. --Grotekennis (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you know that cat in Staffordshire from a hole in the ground?

See User talk:Drmies#Nun's Well that starts badly. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm liking the "no evidence that nuns ever lived there". I'll have a look :) Black Kite (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, what about this (just down the road from me as well!)? I think we're heading for a dab here. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If you are short of things to write about after exhausting yourself with that cat in Staffordshire, you can climb on the Nun's Well bandwagon and write about the nunnery that was adjoined to Greyfriars, Richmond, and which, according to Clarkson 1814, p. 201 (also cited in Whellan 1859, p. 49), had a well called Nun's Well. ☺
      • Clarkson, Christopher (1814). The history of Richmond, in the county of York: including a description of the castle, friary, Easeby-abbey, and other remains of antiquity in the neighbourhood. T. Bowman. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
      • Whellan, T. (1859). History and topography of the city of York: and the North Riding of Yorkshire: embracing a general review of the early history of Great Britain, and a general history and description of the County of York. Vol. 2. John Green. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
      • Elliot, David (1999). "The Richmond Greyfriars and their History". Guide to Richmond. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
    • Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth: I don't get the credit for that. That cat in Staffordshire was the one who pointed out that "no nuns are known to have lived here". Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want to let everyone know your thoughts on User talk:Drmies. Uncle G (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

PROD of Kava (programming language)

Hello,

I'm not sure if this is the correct section to leave messages on, sorry if it's not.

It has come to my attention that you have suggested that my page Kava (programming language) be deleted.

It is true that I am the developer of that language, and that it certainly isn't a notable language, but I'd still like to keep the Wikipedia page as an information outlet.

I will be editting the page as I find time and add new features, I hope that this is OK.

If the problem is in that the language is not yet usable, then I will delete the page, though, and continue using my own website until I have a working implementation. Is this the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannbane (talk • contribs) 01:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there. The problem is that the page doesn't meet our notability and verifiability requirements, and without those it will unfortunately be deleted. See WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Thanks! Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• I understand. I've deleted the page now, and read some of the user guidelines you've pointed me too. I've participated in some other Wiki's so I was not aware of the way Wikipedia treats its articles. I guess there's a long way ahead if I plan to have a Wikipedia article about my own creation... Yannbane (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

We may disagree on some things, but I hope this time of year finds you and yours well. Merry Christmas and all the best, Nouniquenames 03:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks both of you and Merry Christmas to you too. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Puppy

Happy Holidays from the Puppy! May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go. -- KillerChihuahua 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Not sure if you're watching Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anbu121, but I replied to you there. My apologies. I made some incorrect assessments about the reasoning behind your oppose, and I was wrong. --Nouniquenames 14:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• No problem. I wouldn't have opposed on a simple mis-reading of an article, but this one was so ludicrously obvious that it rang alarm bells straight away (plus there was the problem of the NPA on the other AfD). Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletes

Hi, I've noticed you've deleted the Pink Friday: The Pinkprint series of articles all of which were unsourced. However there was also The Pinkprint which you may have missed? Im not sure if I've jumped on this too early and you're already in the process of deleting. If thats the case I apologise! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done now - I was just deciding what to do with it; I've made it a redirect to Minaj seeing as it'll probably be searched for soon. Semi-protected the redirect, though. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User has also created ARTPOP - The Singles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur

To create a concrete platform, where different people with common minds canalize their passion and instincts to re-invent themselves and re-create a society which stands hyphenated with some of the most glorious works of the software realm. This is pure awesome; the next time I'm compiling a list of sample corporate vision statements, this is going to get mixed in. Kuru (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I know - it's just utter brilliance. I'm also taken by "The smart people took the trophy and the smartest took the experience to their kitty of life" and "Linux needs Excellency and here is a platform to corroborate your technology chauvinism and show your Linux skills". Black Kite (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You'll be glad to learn, then, that the prose that you so love stood at Nakshatra MCA meet@NITC for two and a half years from Janury 2010 to June 2012. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No longer, per G4. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Zaalbar

I reverted the sock's WP:ORN request here. Thanks for your help on this. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Any relation to WP's P. Orno? ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Help me please

The Julian Lane article has had some recent edits done to it, since it was initially recomended for deletion. The WP:NMMA only requires 3 fights for top tier organizations in order to be notable. There was some confusion about 2 of his UFC fights, since they weren't reported to the ABC by the sanctioning body (the NSAC) in time to be included on their record books. We have started creating another table for professional fights that weren't reported to the ABC in time, and including reliable references to prove these fights took place. The article now clearly states his notability, and has reliable references. I am trying to resubmit it or contest the deletion, or whatever I need to do to correct it. You left me a link on my talk page but when I go to that page, I can't make heads or tails out of it. I'm trying to follow the guidelines and procedures but to be honest, all of these links and abbreviations are enough to make my head spin. Can you help me through what I want to do, and are there people available to help out us newer editors? I'm trying to be a positive contributor but I'm lost and confused. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there. It's late here (I'm in the UK) and I'm about to log out for the night, but I'll get back to you tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Adelina Domingues

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adelina Domingues. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thebirdlover (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason I nominated it for deletion review was because it was originally deleted and did not have community consensus or your permission before it was remade. I personally like it but I think a review is necessary for all articles that go under that criteria as long as they aren't blatant remakes of the original deleted articles. --Thebirdlover (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review

Hi. I saw you closed that. I was editing it and hit save a few minutes after you made the changes, not that I was trying to re-open it or whatever. I don't agree with the outcome, but I respect that there was not a consensus. Quite honestly I don't think the problem with the article was ever properly addressed. I was pretty surprised by the language used by other editors. For example User:Malleus Fatuorum did a revision on a related article with the edit summary "Cornellier is an ignorant idiot who can't tell his arse from his elbow". I feel quite discouraged from even editing the article if this is the kind of treatment I'll get. Do you have any comments and advice about this process? --Cornellier (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have. Put more thought into what you are doing. You pointed to comments on the talk page, for example. Those comments dated from 2006, however, when the article looked like this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferret legging was in 2006. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferret legging (2nd nomination) was in 2006. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferret legging (3rd nomination) was in 2009, when the article looked like this. During that AFD discussion two editors decided to do some (more) article rescue. Then you come along, three years later, referring back to the 2006 discussions, and completely ignoring what is in the three intervening AFD discussions that address the points of using books as sources and whether this is a hoax. You shouldn't be surprised that you receive push-back from people who clearly think that you didn't make any effort at all to get things straight before leaping in hamfistedly. You didn't even check out the timeline of the talk page discussion against the article history.

  Unfortunately, there exist in the world people who don't apply Hanlon's razor. Like this person they assume malice, and that people are "dishonest" and "liars" (and indeed, mother-, sister-, and dog- fuckers, as you can see), on the parts of people whom they disagree with. Hanlon's razor militates against the assumption of malice and dishonesty. But it doesn't erase charges of carelessness and no application of thought.

  If you'd gone to the talk page with a very different approach, indicating that you'd followed the prior discussions, read the article, and read the cited sources, you'd have met quite a different response. ("I've read the article, the past three AFD discussions, and the various sources cited, and their criteria for what is a sport are seemingly overgenerous. I suspect that they might be treating that aspect of the subject somewhat frivolously. This is supported by at least two of the sources, that trace this back to a music-hall act done in pubs by Ken Campbell and company in the early 1970s, clearly not a world-record whatever the pub entertainers may have styled themselves, and a third source that actually talks about official refusal to recognize this as a sport or grant any sort of record status.") But you didn't.

  Try, from now on, to put yourself in the place of the author of ice canoe when someone comes to Talk:Ice canoe saying "This is a hoax, and not a genuine sport. Canoes aren't made of ice. When I put it into Google Books the first result that comes up is an Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon, so clearly this isn't true.". Would you be annoyed by someone who didn't do the research or even reading of the article to see what it actually said? Then do the same research and reading yourself that you'd expect others to do.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your wise words may be worth saving to rework into a user essay.

A reference to Hanlon's razor would have resulted in my being indefinitely indefinitely blocked. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful remarks, Uncle G. You're correct in deducing that I didn't check carefully through the history of the article. I guess my thinking at the time was that what seemed obvious to me would be obvious to everyone. As we've seen, this was far from the case, and didn't result in any productive work getting done. I shall attempt to apply your suggestions to the talk page of the article, though I admit to being a little discouraged about the possible reactions of other editors given the this report on the administrators' noticeboard/incidents. Thanks also for the hint about ice canoe, I believe the author is working on it now. --Cornellier (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tamaskan Dog

Hi, I'm not sure if it's correct etiquette for me to ask you or not so please just ignore me if it's not okay! I was just curious about the AfD for Tamaskan Dog that you closed as 'keep' yesterday. Although I nominated it for deletion I had never edited it and have no problem with it being kept; maybe I shouldn't say but I actually find it quite entertaining to watch all the disputes that go on with it . It's just I do think the references are dubious and most of the time would have been removed from other articles? AfD is not something I know a lot about and although it's not an area I'm likely to have much involvement with, I try to learn about things as I'm going along so I'm less likely to make mistakes a second time. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Wheresmystache

Has been reincarnated at LadyGaGaKaboom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm 99% certain its one in the same and they've gone ahead and recreated Pink Friday :The Pinkprint albeit with the colon in the wrong place. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

10ticks

Dear Sir...User Black Kite has been editing this page for the last 6 months or so. He has yet to put it live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Black_Kite/10ticks I would be grateful if you could look into this. It is much appreciated.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your plainspoken words of wisdom at Talk:Homophobia and elsewhere. Thank you. Happy New Year! Rivertorch (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year!

Happy new year, Black Kite! Also, in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of beverages/soft drinks please restore the article. Thanks and all the best—S Marshall T/C 20:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Tamaskan dog AfD

Hi, Just thought I'd try and catch you as I noticed you were working here at the moment! I had put a question on your page last week which has now been archived. However, I've also noticed that on the closed AfD banner on the Tamaskan dog talk page, when you click on 'previous discussion' it goes to the AfD from November 2006 and not the more recent one? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hm, that's interesting. It looks as if the AFD closing script doesn't attach the correct discussion if there's been a previous AFD but there isn't a previous {{oldafdfull}} banner for it. I've fixed it now, and will have a look as to why. Black Kite (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

As requested, I have added more evidence regarding Wiki77's tendentious campaigning, and some more on LittleBenW, too. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 15:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Block question

Give the edit history of Narcissism, how is User:Penbat not also guilty of edit warring? I don't see any vandalism, just a textbook content dispute that Penbat claims is trolling. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• You are absolutely correct - I only looked at the IP's contribs. I have blocked User:Penbat for an equivalent time, as there appears to be no reason for their persistent reverting. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks. I think that the IP was reported at WP:AIV, though. But you made a good point for the next time; instead of "playing" with the user, I could have waited for the blocking to happen. Widr (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female video game characters by role

Hi there. I saw that you just closed this discussion. Considering the great depth of discussion it spawned, would you be willing to give a more in-depth explanation of your close? I never expressed a strong preference for delete or keep, but I thought some other options were presented, and would be interested in getting your view of those if that's within the scope of the close. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I will do, but I thought the consensus was fairly clear. Black Kite (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think so too, but I guess I'm wondering if there would be any options for recreating with a different scope or approach. Maybe that discussion can continue at WP:VG or a similar venue. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I left that option open. Black Kite (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Hi Black Kite. Consensus as determined in AfDs is really supposed to be based on and not merely WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I don't think the opinions for a delete were based on Wikipedia policy and style guidelines, and there was an ongoing discussion about the scope that is now stopped in its tracks. Can you provide a rationale of the reason for deleting, one is that is based in policy and not numbers? I don't feel the style guidelines and content policies have been treated fairly by people opposing the list, and knowing what policies are relevant to the topic will inform the continued discussion. Diego (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh - and please, incubate the article. I was still working to improve its content and layout, and someone else agreed that it was appropriate. Diego (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Incubating it now. I've made my closing comment clearer, but whilst AfD is not a vote, there was no refutation of the points made by the nominator. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Wha?? 8-/ I've spent the last two weeks countering the points made by the nominator with direct links to the policies that refuted them. "Unnecessary due to the Category" is not a reason for deletion under WP:NOTDUP, and "incomplete lists" are allowed by Wikipedia:IMPERFECT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Boilerplate_text; also big lists are alllowed per Wikipedia:NOTPAPER and Wikipedia:SALAT, as was pointed out in the discussion. Perhaps you're referring to the points made by other editors? Diego (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Please feel free to take this to WP:DRV. As with the example below, I often close the few AfDs left for each day which tend to be the ones that other people shy away from, and of course some of them will be contentious and people will not agree with my close. Please notify me if you do so, out of courtesy though. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                • Thanks, I was asking just to get feedback and find out if there was a policy based motivation for deleting other than local consensus. I'm not looking to review the close yet, may do it in the future. Diego (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

list of female game chars

Not contesting consensus, but your closing summary seems to flatly disregard guidelines. Wikipedia:NOTDUP#Overlapping_categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates_are_not_considered_duplicative

"It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't believe that was the claim that was being made by many of the comments, however. There may be a valid article here, simply that the majority of the users that commented believed it was not in its present form. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the claim you made directly in your closing comment though. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If you had come across this AfD frim a neutral position, how would you have closed it? Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally would have closed as no consensus, as the reasons for delete are not particularly founded in any policies, and are more "this is outrageous, too long and will get out of hand". Certainly the delete !votes were greater, but it seemed to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT nobody was referencing or quoting policies for deletion, and many people were quoting guidelines and policies such as WP:LSC the ones I linked above etc that indicate this list is well within the bounds of current policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite, I think it was a justified close, in my opinion. There certainly wasn't consensus to keep, when the keeps were divided on what to do with it, a few wanted to keep mostly as is, while others wanted to repurpose it into something completely different, far beyond the scope of the article or AFD at hand. However, it seemed most agreed, across the deletes and some of the keeps, that the article couldn't be kept in the form it's currently in, so either way, the list was likely to not exist in its current form, so a "delete" is a very reasonable choice.

I personally cited issues with it's massive WP:INDISCRIMINATE scope, which traces back to WP:NOT, and another felt it failed WP:NLIST is it's current form. Many of the other deletes, while not literally citing them, were certainly referring alluding to those as well.

Anyways, I'm sorry the arguing has now spilled onto your talk page, I won't discuss it any further. (Hopefully the others will move discussion to WP:VG at this point.) I just wanted you to know that there was support out there for your decision, it was definitely justified. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• No, that's fine. I often end up closing the last few AfDs for each day that other admins won't touch, and of course many of them tend to be contentious. If any editor wishes to take this to DRV, then that's fine. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Memon people protected?

It looks like you protected it with this edit, but I don't see any 'lock' icons etc. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I unprotected it again after realising the IP editors were actually making positive edits. See WP:AN3 entry. Black Kite (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok...that article sure seems to engender strong feelings, with some user talk page posts that look like harassment... Thanks for your explanation. Shearonink (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that! :)

Suppressed now ;) - Alison ^❤ 06:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

outing

Hi. I noticed a mention of this and 2 edits on my watchlist. I'm not sure what to make of it. Could you fill me in? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hmm. That's really weird. I think I will bow out of Wikipedia. How do I delete this account? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't let the bastards get you down. If someones got it in for you you can make a fresh start. Dont let the bullies win. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Visibility

You forgot to hide this content. --LlamaAl (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, was a misclick. Please let me know if there's anything further. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I still can see the personal information. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Black Kite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Black Kite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Youve got mail

Hello, Black Kite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

It's fairly important. Thanks. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent revdel you performed.

Could you also remove & revdel the info from Antwergs user talk page? Up until today he was only naming on the article talk page (with every instance being reverted and revdel'd) however he has now named the person on his talk page, and the discussion is such thats its unavoidable to make the connection. He is essentially putting the info on his talk page that is being removed/kept out of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Think I got rid of it all from User talk:Antwerg but it probably needs revdel as well. Not sure how much you need to hide but I think it started with this diff. Given that he has switched from posting it at the article to posting it on his talk, and there are currently ANI and BLP noticeboard sections open on it, who do I have to poke to get him blocked at this point? I think he has had enough warnings and he doesnt appear to be here for anything else but posting this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Former AfD

Dear Admin, I agree with the essence of your following words in an AfD close. "The result was no consensus. This one is a bit of a mess. There is a clear dispute, not as to the subject's existence, but whether she actually won a competition that would make her notable. Rather than re-listing it, I am closing it as NC and strongly suggest to the editors involved that the article is improved so that it meets our policies or guidelines, or the inevitable result will be that it is nominated again." Let me add to those words that other than the pageant title being retrieved from the subject of our stub, is important the fact that the competition she won or not was not a notable one. A competition that we have reliable sources saying it was not taken seriously and invalidated, and the winner's title been retrieved, is not notable itself; not only for the forgoing but also because we have no clue who else participated, who won the second or third places, to whom the "retrieved" title was given etc. If the subject of our article had done (I mean if we had reliable sources stating that) something other than also participating at the first "Miss Turkey" and coming in third place at that competition in 2009, like being a model or acting in the movies or theatre etc, she could be "notable". However, at the moment she is not notable enough to have an article in WP. These are my words... :-) All the best and thanks for your time. --E4024 (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)