User talk:Black Kite/Archive15
my RfA - Ta!
Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
About the reported vandalism from 88.8.104.231
You wrote "Stale, and AIV is not the place for content disputes - removed"
What is not stale? This user has been doing vandalism edits for years, and did the last one yesterday. He is doing this almost every day, and will without a doubt do it tomorrow as well? When is it not stale?
And it isn't a content dispute. He is doing blatant and repeated vandalism by for example removing references to spanish regions and just writing "spain" instead. The main problem is that he does many small edits on loads of articles, and sometimes they fall through. It's a sort of wide-angle barrage of edits. That is not a content dispute by any reasonable meaning.
--Regebro (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I DID spend a lot of time gathering information on the IPs user page and references there to show that this is not restructed to that particular IP-address. ;) Very well, I will write something on WP:ANI. --Regebro (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Dyy830
This vandal seems to love to mess with celebrity articles. He or she especially removes what they do not like from their Personal life sections (no matter if they're well-sourced) or changes them to relay something false. This vandal has been warned about his or her vandalism more than once.
Your assistance on this matter would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Concerns about a specific image in an article
Hi, I currently have an article, Facebook, at WP:FAC. I removed an image, Image:Facebookheadquarters.jpg, per a suggestion at a recent PR, found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive3, because the image depicted the company's headquarters but it was not discussed that much in the article. The person who took the photo would like to put the image back in. I don't feel too strongly about this either way, but after going through FAC a few times, I agree that the image does not add that much to the article because the subject is not discussed in detail in the article. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could post your own thoughts about this to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Facebook#What_happened_to_my_photo_of_the_HQ.3F.21. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Help needed
If you have the time, I would appeciate you looking at this. Abtract (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
query
Hi BK, Am I right in finding this in the FU justification of an image amusing? "Irreplaceable as the original source (Los Angeles Times), is copyrighted." See Image:Stereo-pak advertisement.jpg and my comment at bottom of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Madman Muntz. TONY (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC) PS same deal with the infobox pic at the top. TONY (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment on the talk page. I would suggest politely that you reconsider your opinions. Wikidea 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A Request
Hello Black Kite, we have ran across each other a few times here on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you would be interested in becoming my admin coach. i have been working with Rlevse and he and I just don't seem to be working out much as our schedules for Wikipedia seem to differ. Please let me know if your interested. Thanks and Happy Editing, Dusticomplain/compliment 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Homeschooling List
Hello, I would like to bring the situation at homeschooling to your attention, as you have looked into it before. I have a warning over the dispute on my user page, I believe it to be injustified but the editor putting it has not explained himself so far. I have no idea what the wikipedia regulations are regarding this. Species8473 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
gob
I saw the article for underground full and perfectly fine like 1 month ago, why was it deleted?Altenhofen (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Images in List of minor characters in Kim Possible
What the hell is with this mass deletion?! They're used Used to describe the characters, have copyright and fair-use image tags, and you trash them anyway!! ----DanTD (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
May Reviewer award
|
The Reviewers Award | |
| To Black Kite, For your excellent work at Featured article candidates during May, thank you for the solid reviews of articles and images this month and for your thorough work towards helping promote Wiki's finest work. The extra had at FAC is appreciated ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
BK, do you have a moment to look at the images issue posed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rongorongo ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Why?
Why would you write this? It seems to me that such bluntness is unlikely to help resolve any dispute. I'd suggest you consider refactoring your remark. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, you'd be writing to help an encyclopedia. Honesty is not enough to be acting to help the encyclopedia. Consider this a second request to try to be more cooperative. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
FAC reviews
Black Kite, would appreciate some advice - I started helping out with reviewing images at WP:FAC. My question is, how hard do we hold the line on minimal non-free content in featured articles? The particularly tough criteria, as always, are WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. A particular case in point is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assata Shakur. I have been advising the authors to beef up their rationales, but would appreciate any guidance on standards or approaches that you have used. Thanks! Kelly hi! 03:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just an etiquette question - when I come across images in FACs with problems that warrant deletion, should I go ahead and tag them as such? A worst-case scenario is the lead image on Lince (tank), which is in all likelihood not replaceable by a free image, but the copyright holder is not identified, failing WP:NFCC#10a. Kelly hi! 20:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
FA Criterion 3—Images
Hi Black Kite
I wonder whether you can take a look some time at this discussion WRT NFC? I want to be sure that the current wording and any proposed wording is entirely consistent with the NFCC.
BTW, my line, which I think won't stick there (although I got it through the Feature List people), is that explicating in featured-content criteria the policy that applies to all WP's content makes it seem as though that policy isn't taken seriously in non-featured content—somehow it needs to be specially restated. It also clutters the criteria needlessly. But that's a sideline to the reason for my message here. TONY (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
KW
[1] ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Image removal List of Suikoden II characters
Do we go counting the fair use images and say they're excessive? Because in a list, images are needed to give the reader an idea about the character.Ultra! 16:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see an actual consensus reached there, and request it be relisted or closed as no consensus. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Black Kite. Did you honestly consider all the arguments? To me, the closing statement is written more as !vote instead of as closing statement. It seems unbalanced and perhaps even "proof by intimidation" by seeminly ignoring any of the arguments for keep. Any chance you'll reconsider your close? --Firefly322 (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Alien and Predator timeline
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alien and Predator timeline. 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. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)