User talk:Black Kite/Archive10

Talk Page archives: 01-02-03-04-05-06-07-08-09
To leave me a message, click here

Millionaire Matchmaker

Hi. At the very least, this "article" is a nearly empty A1 speedy which was placed by a user with a really questionable edit history. Just because the show exists doesn't mean that this is a suitable article. In fact, I stand by my original assertion that the content is near-gibberish and I don't want to waste anyone's time by running it up on AfD. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before he/she put the taxobox on it, it really was gibberish. Almost no context. In fact, the taxobox is probably what saved it. I've taken the liberty of adding some cleanup notices instead. Odds are, this editor isn't going to be the one to expand it based on that edit history. Oh, well. Thanks for the help. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby

I reviewed this case, which you have already looked at. I suggest that you indef-block JonCourtney (the suspected sock) and warn Justpassinby (the main account). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since being blocked for vandalism and then for sockpuppetry, User:Justpassinby has been making more subtle edits to Pure Reason Revolution, but some still seem to me to be vandalism, e.g. this one, while others strike me as gaming the system. I've notified User:Tango, as the admin who first blocked Justpassinby, but I thought I would notify you as well should you wish to review the situation. Bondegezou (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the talk page note

Thanks for the note on my talk page. (I guess that RfA was going too smoothly anyway.) Doczilla (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Boy, I wish I could edit a typo out of an edit summary. Doczilla (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:71.247.138.244

71.247.138.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is right back at it after coming off his block. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richardcrocker1's block

Hi. I was looking at this user's spam and all his warnings with the idea of blacklisting his domain. Then I noticed the 4 recent warnings all occurred at 02:15, he saved an edit at 02:16 and was blocked at 02:18. I'm concerned he may not even been aware of those 4 warnings until he saved his 02:16 edit, after which he made no more edits until blocked.

Although some have called me "one of the worst of the 'link-nazis' at WikiProject Spam", normally I'll give folks a few more warnings first. Can you take another look at this one?

As for what to do with the domain, I started a thread at:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#planetebook.com spam on Wikipedia

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Ben Purkiss

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ben Purkiss. 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. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Three categories are pending deletion in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I have created those cats in error. I have speedied them by db-author. Can you please delete them. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom injunction

Several other AfDs have been closed because of the injunction. It is annoying to me as well, because I also think these articles are full of cruft (and my record in AfDs previous to the injunction will speak to that), but enough people made enough noise to get this enacted and I'd rather leave it alone until it gets resolved. :\ JuJube (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Nokia 1200

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nokia 1200. 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. Snowman (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. 1 out of 3 Americans are opposed to miscegenation. Their opinions should be recognized, no matter how politically incorrect they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.37.246 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to FICTWARN has been reverted

I reverted your changes to Template:Fictwarn. The original template was written according to the actual language of the injunction, and was done after some discussions elsewhere. The version you created makes an additional stipulation which was not proposed nor approved by the ARBCOM. Please discuss further changes to this template before making them, Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)

Circumcision may decrease a man's risk of getting HIV but it may also INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia. (and some doctors even say other STD's too but I won't get into that and I wouldn't put caps on INCREASE.)

The article on circumcision mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once. Click on the article. You tell me if it's an article on the procedure called circumcision or a pro-circumcision propaganda pamphlet.

Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my one sentence I want to add? Or possibly get new Admins to take over this article, which has fallen way below Wikipedia standards.

here's the New York Times piece... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&fta=y

I used to love Wikipedia until I went to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salting of Get Paid to website

Per [1] it looks like you meant to salt this, but I was able to recreate it. Can you redelete and salt? Thanks. Reswobslc (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous.

Thanks Pedro : Chat for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real...

Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Kosovo

Actually, the wording "remainder of Serbia" is rather precisely crafted so it's innoffensive to both. "Remainder" in English can both mean "the rest"--an interpretation likely to please pro-Serb editors, and "what was left after part was removed"--an interpretation likely to be fine for advocates of independence.

In terms of the disputed tag, I would recommend placing it specifically in the sections that there is conflict over, rather than painting the whole article as hopeless. A lot of us have killed ourselves trying to maintain NPOV for a topic that's riddled with rather arcane questions of international law yet that has a lot of readers from around the world would like to read up on things right now.

- The Tom (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

You reverted my change on Kosovo on grounds of my edit removing reference links. Did you bother A. to look at what the links say, B. see what else was reverted by doing this, and, C. consider whether a guy was pushing his POV, by claiming that Dardania -aka Kosovo, in his mind- was only Illyrian -aka Albanian, in his mind- and not Thraco-Illyrian. Last time I checked the article on Dardania and Dardani, stated that half the names there were Thracian and the rest were Illyrians. Moreover, scientists are not even sure yet if the name Dardania is llyrian. Check the Illyrians article, too, and see if there's a consensus on where Illyrians came from even. Those articles have sources, too... But, no, you just reverted my edit to his POV. I feel disappointed. Heracletus (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, these articles were written BEFORE the 2008 Kosovo UDI. I wanna thank you, however, you just rverted my edit and never cared. Heracletus (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is this article changes way too fast to discuss... And, User:Getoar made like too many edits on its history section WITHOUT discussing them first. So, it was just not doable to revert and say: "Discuss before you change". Heracletus (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, check what I say on Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo_and_Dardania and tell me if you can fix the whole article, not just reverting what I note there, but assessing the whole of User:Getoar's changes. Cause last time, I just thought he was pushing his POV, and reverted the whole thing. But, it seems it contained sources, so... And, yes, I knew it had sources in it, but when someone pushes his POV, you don't just keep his sources. At least, not me. Heracletus (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I don't wanna do the job. You're the admin... :P I'm like disgusted. And, no matter what Wikipedia reads like, it all depends on Russia and the States to get what Kosovo really is. If you wanna do the job, the fastest way is to get the German Wikipedia article and what you gave me. Last time I checked the Germans had a proper map, showing Serbia on it, too, and proper names and a nice history, stating just the facts. You should either fully protect a NPOV version of this article, or constantly fight the editing wars there. I will either vandalize the article, or just change it when I feel like it. Cause, yeah, NPOV is ok, but, I am Greek, I feel for the Serbs and I had enough trying to keep a NPOV. I could as easily provide the ultra-nationalistic Serbian and Greek "sources" on how Albania never existed, Albanians never existed and Kosovo is Serbian as half the state of Albania is, too. The other half is Northern Epirus and Greek. So much for POVs. :P Heracletus (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]