User talk:Black Kite/Archive03

To leave me a message, click the + symbol at the top of the page. I will usually reply on your talk page.

British Rail Class 47 - GAN[edit]

Hi., I saw that you have addressed the GAN comments. However you have not put your responses to the comments. It will help if you can add responses before i can close the GAN. --Kalyan 08:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Alanagh Recreant[edit]

Hi Eliminator, I am new to Wikipedia... but am looking forward to make a constructive contribution. I started out to document my SL name as I am running a project for our organisation and wanted to create some understanding about it here. I believe the name entry is not acceptable? Thanks for pointing it out. I have seen various biographies here and understood it would be fine, but it is not? The intention was to assist people only knowing my SL name to end up with the project - which I will enter later. I suppose it would be best to just start with that, or with company entry? Your advice will be appreciated. The entry relates to an article posted on the following blog about digital divide initiatives and I would really like to understand the best process to document the project and our organisation here without violating common practices: [1] Please advise.

Barnstar[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your WP:CHESS-related contributions; in particular, for rescuing articles from disappearing into the void... ;-) youngvalter 03:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Robot Wars articles[edit]

Thanks for giving me those categories, I'll be sure to keep an eye on it for awhile. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes[edit]

I'm working on getting the SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes article up to FA status, and as a fellow gricer, I am wondering whether you would like to help by peer reviewing the article on any of these pages:

I hope you accept this offer, and look forward to receiving your constructive feedback! Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 18:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007/08 Premier League Results[edit]

Thanks for closing for me. --John 23:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on Oliver watson[edit]

Hi, I`m confused about your revert and warning on Oliver watson, which I tagged with a speedy deletion template, since it didn`t assert notabilaty. Snother editor has since tagged it as a speedy. Could you please claify what the problem of my edit was, so I can avoid it in the future? Thanks in advance.--24.22.122.180 09:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football fixtures copyright[edit]

I see the debate has closed, but for your information, it has been held that under EU copyright law, football fixture lists are not subject to database rights protection. [2] Any claims otherwise made by the Football League or its representatives are merely posturing for the sake of intimidating people into paying up their "licensing" fees. JulesH 11:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Wednesday[edit]

E,

I don't think that Brooklyn Wednesday is a hoax like Forgive Me and Prevailed Upon given that the album has already been discussed on Seth Tisue's Jandek list and that this album's track listing contains individual titles. Ask Seth just in case since he has some contact with Corwood Industries. -- CJ Marsicano 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes[edit]

Hello, I've incorporated the changes you suggested to the article. Is it possible that you could re-read the article to find any other issues? I thank you for your time on this matter. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done what you have suggested. Is there anything else that you think needs doing better?--Bulleid Pacific 21:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe, to the best of your knowledge, that it is just about ready to be submitted? Thank you for the help thus far, by the way! --Bulleid Pacific 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have another look at the article, it's up as an FAC, but User:EdJogg and I have had a complete rehash of the layout. We think it is much more accessible due to all construction details being in one place, with the more detailed sections such as livery and preservation being towards the bottom. Hope you like the new version! And as always, any comments for further improvement would be gratefully appreciated. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 11:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Adraktas[edit]

I have mentioned it on WP:COIN, and I am going to give him another warning about discussing on talk pages and letting others do the actual editing. If he doesn't, I will go to ANI. I'm going to try page protection now. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked him to ask other people to perform the edits on the talk page, etc, however he has not listened and continues to edit the page itself. Right now, i'm requested page protection, so he hopefully will start talking on the talk page. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went for page protection, hopefully itll get handled quickly enough. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

On your successful RfA. Enjoy the mop. --John 15:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 15:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curse-X[edit]

Damn that was fast. I was adding to Wikipedia:Protected titles and got that weird little yellow "Delete page" message—congratulations :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (personally) use the list instead of SALTing the regular way as it doesn't show up as a recreated page in the deletion log. If you'd rather use {{deletedpage}} that's fine by me :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silverbird Designs[edit]

I'm am still a little confused why Silverbird Designs was deleted. What actions do I need to take to place it back on Wikipedia?

Sabra Johnson[edit]

This is the second time someone has deleted a "Sabra Johnson" entry. Both were done by two different people btw. What does it take?

I see. Unfortunately Sabra Johnson from that show is something of an unknown and therefore there is not that much background information available for her. I'll try adding the page with a little bit more info though.

Hi[edit]

Why did you only block Bobby for 24 hrs? He seems like a vandal only shouldn't he have an indef or infinite? Please respond on my talk. SLSB talk ER 01:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

...for fixing the block. Hey can you update User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage please? If you respond do so on my talk please. SLSB talk ER 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. SLSB talk ER 02:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indef IP blocks[edit]

You need to be careful about these - we generally don't unless there's good reason to be sure that it's a fixed IP. Also, you should also always use the {{indefblockedip}} tag if you do feel that you have to. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert 02:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign For Life[edit]

Why was the Campaign For Life article deleted? It had more votes to keep than delete on the review page. It should have been kept. Dragon224 12:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid wall[edit]

You appear to have edited an article, then protected it on your preferred version. This, of course, is an abuse of your admin powers. Please remove your protection before I have to take further action. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for this claim? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete lists[edit]

Please see the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete_lists, which is not a grounds for deletion. In fact, the guideline understands that nearly all lists are incomplete. Where does policy dictate that an incomplete lists is grounds for deletion? Since you are an administrator, i was wondering if you could tell me. Also, where is the policy stating that possible crystal ball maintenance issues is grounds for deletion? Please see WP:Deletion#Deletion_discussion, where it states that "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants should explain their opinion and refer to policy." I am asking you to refer to the policies which endorse deleting lists for being incomplete and hard to maintain. Thank you very much. (Mind meal 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I see this argument advanced often, and was just wondering where it comes from. I can't read everything on Wikipedia, so am curious if there are policies and guidelines with consensus that state these are criteria for deletion. I've been trying hard to find them and was wondering if you knew where I could find them. I also see listcruft used as a rationale for deletion of lists often by some users, but WP:Listcruft is just an essay and not policy or guideline. I'm confused on why these arguments continue being advanced when, as far as I can see, they are not based on policy. I was hoping you could help me out since you voted along this rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rhythm guitarists. (Mind meal 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You did know that lists have three main purposes, right? (Mind meal 12:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

So you are admitting it is an opinion to delete an article not based on any standing policy or guideline? The same for preferring categories to lists, too? Don't you think you should bring these things up in the talk pages advocating these current guidelines and policies, instead of voting a certain way when you have no backing for doing so? (Mind meal 12:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I guess I just expected an administrator to realize that policy often will contradict their own opinion, and they must act according to policy anyway. Please see WP:POINT#Refusal to 'get the point' for my reasoning for this discussion. I would like to think every administrator would not allow personal bias to stand in the way of policy arrived at per consensus. Would you agree with me on that? (Mind meal 12:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Glad to find we can agree on something! I just wanted you to give some extra thought to such deletion votes, as it leaves the impression for others voting that such rationale is somehow based on policy when an administrator votes that way. It is my belief that we should always use policy and guidelines when reaching a decision outside of policy and guideline talk pages. Otherwise, we are bound to leave others with the impression that our opinion is based on policy or guideline. This is especially true in the case of an administrator, who the community expects to be fluent concerning guidelines and policy. You know, the monkey see monkey do syndrome. (Mind meal 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Don't worry...[edit]

... you're doing fine. :) The semi-protection thing will sort itself out. Generally, about every 4th admin action generates a complaint, sometimes more if you're blocking suspected sockpuppets. That's not to say the complaint has no basis; it really is not a good idea to edit then protect; but I've found the admin learning curve to be quite steep and unforgiving, so don't worry, no long term harm done. I think the biggest mistake I've made so far was protecting the main-page featured article of the day, in response to a request at WP:RFPP, not realizing the reams of discussion and policy on the topic. Fortunately, these things can be quickly undone, and you absolutely did the righ thing by seeking feedback on WP:AN. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiggestwwefan[edit]

Thank you for the block, I tried my best to be civil and asked him to stop posting forum messages on talk pages but, as evidenced by his edits, he didn't want to listen and I didn't want to get personally involved, so I thank you for stepping in. Cheers for your time. Darrenhusted 12:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user is back, trying to evade block. New account similar posts to old account. I don't know procedure in this case, could you check him out/warn him/block him, what ever is appropriate. Darrenhusted 19:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Eliminator please do not pay any attention to Darrenhusted I think he is personally jealous of me and doesn't want me to have an Wikipedia Account but rest assure I need no warnings or blocks thank you very much because unlike him I have a life and am not worried about him. So don't waste your time Thank You So Much. Darius123 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to fill your talk page up but will say that I responded [3] to a post made by Darius123 [4]. I have now made a ANI report. Thanks for your time on this, feel free to blank these comments. Darrenhusted 22:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC) If he keeps popping up what do we do? I'm guessing he will always announce his return with a remark on my page. Darrenhusted 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the block[edit]

thanks for the block on Yacky, i know i kinda slipped up giving him two final warnings, mainly because i pulled the final for personal attack a little early, but anyways thanks again.--JWJW ^Talk Long Live Esperanza! :)/^{Stronger Faster Better.} 10:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletes on Drake[edit]

Sorry, no idea what happened here. I was marking new pages with User:Martinp23/NPWatcher and never loaded up Drake (couldn't have since it's not a new page). I will report the incident to the author. --NeilN 23:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darrenhusted Block[edit]

Please keep an eye on Darrenhusted because he is leaving me horrible messages when I am not even talking about him. Like the Talk: Candice Page please go down to the section of Champions Only Match and there you will see me just contributing like everyone else and then you'll see him leaving a message that is so un relavant. I have given him exzactly 3 Warnings NOTE: you will not see them on his talk because he has deleted them all he is trying to make me the bad guy but all I want to be a Wikipedia Member without all his drama and I left him a warning about telling everyone to keep an eye on me I am over him but still wants me off can you please warn him about this and if you read this Thanks So Much Darius123 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lie and if you will read the message above you will see that I am not the bad guy. Darius123 22:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators[edit]

Hi there, thanks for your message. Of course I'll help where I can but I haven't had an easy time with this particular article. I agree that the text Gladboy has created is of dubious verifibility and varying quality, but an edit war was breaking out on the main article (Gladiators) and I was trying to take a step back having convinced him not to put the text in the main article. If you have some suggestions as to how to deal with this article I'd be grateful, but as you can see from its history, Gladboy is very insistent and I only have limited patience with the article itself! Docta247 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the support on my RFA, I'm looking forward to it! --AW 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I apologize for my incivility on the 3RR incident page, and thank you for your comment to User:Bdell555. A small warning like that was all I was looking for. RedSpruce 16:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in my remarks supports your contention that I INTEND or otherwise desire an "edit war", EliminatorJR. I would like to see what your other evidence is to support such a charge. I just said [an unwanted] one was likely, because the other side seems to have regrettably given up on further pursuing alternative solutions, like further discussion, mediation, etc. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RedSpruce&oldid=143323254#Alger_Hiss Since the other parties are unwilling or unable to involve other parties who might help mediate or develop a consensus, I have made efforts myself to bring in some more parties. I would fully support and encourage Redspruce to do the exact same, simply because most people will try and provide a new perspective as opposed to just blindly supporting someone else's edit (like mine or Redspruce's) without any further analysis. I have asked those reverting to try and re-involve KarlBunker, for example, someone who supported Redspruce's general perspective in the past. If you review the full issue on the Alger Hiss Talk page, you will also see that in the past I have supported the compromise edits suggested by mediators Cberlet and AJ, compromises that were rejected by the other side. I've also promptly accepted Redspruce's suggested "compromise" re a dispute over the Ellen Schrecker page. Redspruce continues to refuse to compromise even an inch with respect to the third sentence of the Alger Hiss page, however, and my 3RR violation replaced this single sourced claim with a multiple sourced claim, amongst several other contributory edits. My efforts to bring in a Brittanica cite have also been reverted, despite the presence of a Wiki policy calling for a reference text citation in the circumstances concerned. Bottom line is that I do not believe that your claim that I "threatened to start an edit war" is any more fair an interpretation of my remarks than someone saying in August of 1939 that there will probably be a war in Europe, so if the other parties insist on starting one and won't be dissuaded, you may wish to prepare accordingly. Finally, within minutes of the 3RR violation, I apologized on the article's Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alger_Hiss#3RR Evidently, an apology wasn't good enough for you or Redspruce. In any case, as a gesture of good faith, I will cease all attempts to edit the Alger Hiss page for a period of time.Bdell555 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]