User talk:Black Kite/Archive 66

Owney Madden Again

re Owney Madden it seems he is back anonymously, I don't want to break protocol, should I change it back or leave alone ? Unibond (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking in on the article as I saw it referenced on ANI. There is preexisting original research over and above the edit referred to above. "Madden" appears to be an Irish name, but if he was Irish it needs to be sourced (obviously). Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

According to the documentation available so far, Owney's birth cert, both parent birth certs and US immigration form; all list parents as being born in Leeds. I asked for any reference they were Irish but none was forthcoming. Unibond (talk)

Yes, indeed. I wouldn't usually protect/block on these types of articles but that account/IP is clearly editing against reliable sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Using such documents for an article is really not a good practice. I hope there are secondary sources. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of anything else, that's all we can go on. The current article is based in fact (i.e. Madden was born in Leeds). If we need to add "Irish" to the text, we will need very reliable sources, and at the moment we don't have them (indeed, the census form argues against them). Whilst I completely understand that families can come from an Irish "background" (and this would be suggested by Madden's NY/Irish gang escapades), one does need actual sources for it. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. I may have some sources that can shed light on this. I have found that organized crime articles on Wikipedia are so filled with OR that it is ridiculous. I don't even touch them most of the time. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Civility

I am curious what the deal is with civility. You surely have seen your fellow admin call someone an asshole. I thought the like was against policy so i wonder, why did he not even get a warning for that? I am quite sorry for asking this but... it just seems really odd. For example, if i went somewhere and called another editor an asshole i would surely be gone in no time, yet he did not even get a warning. Now obviously i am not asking for sanction but i just do not get it. What is up with that policy? Is it not enforced? Is it partialy enforced? Is it selectively enforced? Why are some people blocked/banned for breaching it, some warned for it and others completely free of abiding by it? I would get that there would have to be a pattern of behaviour for serious consequences but that is not how it practically works out for a certain class of editors, while for another class even with a pattern nothing happens, not even warnings. So, i would appreciate some input on the topic because... well... i just do not get what the deal is. Just as a note, i take no offense at words, people can curse as they like but shouldn't policy be enforced and that equaly? And please do not take this as criticism of yourself, i am just wondering how it works. 91.49.84.167 (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

As it appears, you have no interest in answering my question which is fine. But could you at least refer me to a place where i could ask a question of this nature? I really am genuinly interested in the question of how that policy practicaly works. Because it is obvious it does not work as written. I would also be interested in how civility works in relation to nopunish, as those two policies seem rather opposed to and working against eachother. Anyway, you of course don't have to refer me to a page where i could ask these kind of questions either but i would greatly appreciate it nonetheless. Have a good day regardles :) 91.49.91.220 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I really didn't notice this at the time; I would suggest that Jayron32 was claiming that one could be correct and still be a whatever, but that he wasn't really aiming it at another editor ("you are an asshole"). Anyway, it doesn't appear that the editor concerned has taken major offence, so it's probably not worth pursuing IMO, Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry if i did not make it clear enough, it was a general question that sprung to mind from that particular case. And something i have seen all too often by established editors and often admins in many locations(prolific lurker here haha). Not that it is always undeserved, it hardly ever is but... well, its policy to be civil so i wonder about application. Anyway, often seen insults with the qualifier that it was not a direct insult, even if it clearly often was. Just as you said yourself above. I just do not understand the practical aplication of that policy as it obviously is not enforced equaly or even strict and just not as written. But i will stop badgering you anyway. And again, sorry for bothering you with my questions but... well, the only way to get something one doesn't understand is asking and as an experienced admin i thought you could perhaps say something about it. But yea, the qualifying "but it was not directly about you, i just said LIKE a/n XYZ" seems to be the answer why civility is not enforced equaly then i guess coming from the good will extended towards established editors and more so admins. For example i once seen two editors each call eachother names, totally indirect and in the "like a" manner. In that case one was an admin and arbcom member and the other was a regular editor i presume. One got banned the other not even a warning. You can assume who got what. Anyway, no need for you to answer, because there probably just is no easy answer. Just to give an insight in how it became an "issue" i am interested in. So apologies for bothering you and i guess it can be left at that then. Thank you i guess even though im pretty much as smart as i was before, not that i fault you that of course. Good evening to you anyway :) 91.49.91.220 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Almond milk

Thanks for taking care of this rubbish... noticed you semi'd the page for now. I had actually put in a request at RFPP for pending changes. Not seeing many recent edits to the page other than this nonsense, think it's a good candidate for PC? Home Lander (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh never mind, just got your reply at RFPP. Home Lander (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Revoke 172.58.136.251's talk access. He's up to his old tricks again. Home Lander (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

G20 summits ITN/R removal proposal

As the most recent admin to edit Template:In the news who has not opined in the discussion, please would you consider assessing the consensus of the proposal to remove the G20 summits from ITN/R. The last substantive comment was on 27 July. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Chinese Expeditionary Force

Thanks for your help with cleanup and for putting it back on T:DYK. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Owney Madden Again

sorry mate, they are back again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owney_Madden&type=revision&diff=795395433&oldid=794837778 Unibond (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Again I am contesting the speedy deletion. If a topic is actually promotional, then there would be obvious signs of it, like not posting such an article on Wiki, and posting it on the many many many marijuana sites that are used for such things. All my article states is what this company did in order to become one of the largest marijuana dispensaries in the state of Colorado. An informative article about a company that doesn't have just one source of information about it but instead small articles spread throughout the news. Which is why I am writing about this topic, it I wanted to promote it, I would've used the correct site for a promotions. Examples include; Weedmaps, Leafly, Duby, Marijuana.com, Sweetleafmarijuana.com, and Hilife Creative, those are just some of the options for a promotional article. This article was created to inform and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetleafjackcaitlyn (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yuou may dispute both deletions at this location, but you need to know that it is unlikely that two articles as promotional as those will be restored. It would be useful to read this page as well. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Black Kite. I don't know how to explain that those blatant ads are indeed promotional. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Responding again

So, I can no longer create either of my pages because I am a fan of what I am writing about? How do any pages get started in the first place if no one had an interest in them? Every response I have received has been little help on how to correct such errors. Is this site not academic at all? What is the point of bothering to create a Wikipedia then? Can you elaborate the reason you exist to edit such articles, if you won't explain your actions on such edits? Why bother if you will not share the proper information with those who have been continuously asking? Could someone who keeps repeating these processes work with me, instead of just ignoring my questions and accusing me of spam? I happen to find pioneers in the cannabis industry fascinating, and wanted to share such things, but instead I'm being accused of nonsense. Everything you keep repeating has been completely useless in improving my writing as well as my article. I've been asking for more information, on what exactly is the issue, but instead you slap a vague term on it without elaborating. Which is all I've been asking for, for a long while now.

• It isn't anything complicated - Wikipedia works from NPOV (neutral point of view) which means any article needs to be neutral, and not be couched in promotional language. You can be a "fan" of something as long as you follow those rules (although as I said we do try to dissuade people with a direct link to something from writing about them).

Take these examples from your article;

• "Now Sweet Leaf Marijuana stands tall with its 400-plus-employees" (should be "Sweet Leaf Marijuana has 400-plus employees")
• "Sweet Leaf has always operated on doing what's best for it's people" (promotional marketing speak, absolutely barred from a Wikipedia article)
• "But all businesses must start somewhere, when this company originated it was because of the determination of the three co-owners of Sweet Leaf" (ditto)
• "These three weren’t always the dynamic trio they are today." (ditto)
• "Sweet Leaf shows its employees that with some aggressive determination, you can accomplish anything, that without failure you couldn't learn to better your future." (ditto)
• "Not to mention appealing to the needs of their growing numbers of staff, stocking the break rooms with snacks and food to keep the 'Budtenders'.." (trivia)
• A list of retail outlets? I think not.

• I could go on and on. The best thing is to go and look at other articles about companies and see how they're written. It shouldn't be difficult to write a neutral article, but I would say that 75% of the article needs t be re-written or removed. Hope this helps, Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Response

I appreciate the examples, does this information mean I can start on a new Sweet Leaf article? I write very much on the side of, I guess 'fluff' pieces, I'm used to writing blogs or smaller articles. Wiki is a lot different than the media sources I am adjusted to. I appreciate your help, it has been very insightful. I want to practice my writing and improve on my skills. This has been very helpful for my future writing, I will try to practice more in a Word doc before I try to submit a new piece. But hopefully this hasn't ruined me being able to work on Wiki. I don't think I had a full grasp of Wiki, so the fact that you are helping me by clarifying some facts, makes me very happy. No one else has really reached out as politely. Thank you. Sweetleafjackcaitlyn (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or 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/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw ^talk 05:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Blacklisted image

File:CHINESE.jpg, which you blacklisted because it was being used by vandals the other day, has been deleted from Commons per my nomination, so it can be removed from the MediaWiki:Bad image list. Home Lander (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Avaya FAST Stacking listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Avaya FAST Stacking. Since you had some involvement with the Avaya FAST Stacking redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manifest (convention)

Hi Black Kite. I do not see a consensus for a redirect to List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions. Aoziwe and I both supported retaining the page, while Knowledgekid87 and Cjhard supported deletion. No one supported a redirect. No one commented about the sources I posted. Would you clarify how you found a consensus for a redirect? Cunard (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Two Deletes, a Keep and a Weak Keep but the latter voting on the basis that it was not covered at List of anime conventions before being pointed out that it was. This type of AfD is always tricky but now I see someone's nominated even the redirect for deletion. You can't win, can you? Send it to DRV if you want, I won't disagree. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, this was a difficult close. I would have been fine with a redirect if content could be merged to List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions but the list's inclusion criteria only allows notable conventions. That means that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 3#Manifest (convention) is likely to succeed since with the AfD close, the Manifest convention won't qualify for inclusion in the list. I have taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 3#Manifest (convention) for review by the community. Thank you again for taking another look. Cunard (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

IP: 217.42.40.168

It appears that The IP you recently blocked (109.153.185.33) has re-appeared under 217.42.40.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with exactly the same unsourced changes as before. Perhaps there should be a semi protection on the pages concerned? With thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Talk:Yom HaShoah.
Message added 06:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heads up that I reverted a copyvio deletion that turned out not to be a copyvio. I put reasoning on the article's talk page Valley2city^‽ 06:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Over-restriction

Including user talk pages in the new remedy at here seems pointless and counter-productive. Even gameable. E.g., I could post something mentioning one of these topics to his personal talk page, he could archive it, I could unarchive it to add a second comment to my original comment, he could archive it again, and bang he's just engaged in a violation, by removing my original comment from the page twice back-to-back.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Eldritch

I see you moved the Eldritch disambiguation page onto the main article and stamped out all the original information on the history of the word. As it stands now, there is no understanding of what eldritch means or is. What can we do to fix this? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• The place for word definitions is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, but it'd be prudent to comment to that effect when making an edit so I don't have to come to your talk page to discover it. Do you have a MOS on these rules for articles? Leitmotiv (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the discussion did point out the issues with the article being a dictionary definition, to be fair. About the closest I can find to a policy is WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Basically, if the article is just a definition of the word (or very little more) then it belongs in Wiktionary, but there are obviously words and phrases that are far more notable and covered in multiple reliable sources. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Was the discussion announced on the Eldritch page? Leitmotiv (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

World News Media

Hello Black Kite,

I just wanted to get your feedback on why you chose to keep the World News Media entry. My understanding of consensus as it relates to Wikipedia is that the quality of the arguments presented is the factor by which a decision is made.

The keep comment made by the creator Edwardx (after removing what they had to say about me) was: "It is helpful to have numerous sources in order to demonstrate that this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH, 'If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.' The article satisfies WP:NPOV, as it reflects what is available in reliable sources."

At no point does he explain how the list of press release material, blogs and opinion pieces constitute reliable sources. It is not acceptable to assert opinion, present it as fact and then claim that it was "a reasonable reflection of what is stated in reliable sources", especially not in the introductory sentence on the topic which is entirely unreferenced: "World News Media Limited is the publisher of World Finance magazine which is tied to the marketing of numerous vanity awards under the name of the World Finance Awards". The phrase 'vanity awards' has never been directly referenced by a source.

His collaborator on this and other articles, Philafrenzy had this keep comment: "The company and its awards have sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG." Oh, ok then. But GNG does require that sources are reliable, and do not clearly regurgitate press releases or come from places without an editorial policy in place. But if you gather up enough press releases, say fifteen, picked up by independent news sources, then that satisfies depth of coverage? Wikipedia has to hold itself to higher standards than that considering they are in business with the world's largest search engine.

Colapeninsula's keep comment was: "I don't see any grounds for deletion. WP:NPOV is only a reason for deletion if the article cannot be fixed." Fair enough, so what are the arguments for keeping? I don't see any. The editor seems to acknowledge that there is an issue with NPOV here.

Ravensfire's keep (but trim) comment was: "I feel there are enough sources that provide significant coverages towards the company to keep the article, but we need to trim awards / claims that are soley based on primary sources, whether from this company or from the Botswana Corprate Watchdog group. It's going to be much smaller, but that's probably correct for a company like this and given the existing secondary sources". If the article does have to be kept, then I agree with Ravensfire here that it should be smaller. Since the AfD discussion ended, Philafrenzy has only added to it.

Atlantic306's keep comment was: "there are enough combined reliable sources referenced within the article to verify its present content and immediate expansion is not needed, so WP:GNG is passed". Another assertion of reliable sources without any explanation why they believe this to be the case.

Black Kite, the quality of the arguments here aren't worthy of a keep decision. Type 'world news media' into Google, see what comes up. Then tell me that the statement you read on the inline wikipedia card is a fair and balanced statement about the company.

You should be aware that we are a publisher. That is our business first and foremost. We print magazines - four different titles, we employ journalists, designers, production staff, developers. Sometimes it's easy or convenient to forget that. Those people work really hard, and a couple of editors on here who have an axe to grind about vanity awards (my opinion based on the fact that we're not the only company they've lumped into the same category) thinks it's fair to discredit that work? Publishing is a tough enough gig as it is. I respect the considerable contributions of Edwardx and Philafrenzy to this site, but can't understand their actions here.

Excuse my impassioned plea. You don't have to care about it one way or another. I don't expect that. What I hope for though, is a neutral assessment of the actual topic which is not awards. Philafrenzy says the magazines are a 'fig leaf' for the awards. I doubt he's actually read one of our magazines. You can read them online for free, or they are available in print, in selected shops. Philafrenzy expressed doubts that the magazines are even printed. They are. And that statement is just as good as the one used in the introduction of the entry. Do you see the problem here?

Since the AfD discussion, I have added a request for edits to the talk page and opened a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard.

If the weight of responsibility for balanced and dispassionate entries lies with the consensus of the community, then the community must be willing to accept that it is attempting to put a company out of business in this instance. Scottrouse (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Scott, the discussion did have a clear consensus to keep the article; even some of the comments suggesting Delete were unsure about the situation. You can appeal the decision at WP:DRV. It's a bit of a pain to follow the instructions there - if you do decide to appeal and aren't sure how it works, let me know. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017. 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. Satou4 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy @TomStar81 @Explicit Since the deletion discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Gaon_Digital_Chart_number_ones_of_2017, I have added independent sources from news articles which make the page fall more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Since the article is no longer a simple mirror of the Gaon Digital Chart, I would like to ask that it be reinstated. If there is still a debate as to the page's qualifications, I would like to open a new deletion review for it, so it can eventually become a real page again. Satou4 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)