User talk:Black Kite: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:08, 24 September 2012 editBlack Kite (talk \| contribs)Administrators85,161 edits →NFCC page: typo← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:45, 24 September 2012 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk \| contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 4 threads (older than 48h) to User talk:Black Kite/Archive 43.Next edit →
Line 54:		Line 54:
	\| style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-align:left; color: #000000; font-size: 75%; line-height: 1.3em;" colspan="2"\|		\| style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-align:left; color: #000000; font-size: 75%; line-height: 1.3em;" colspan="2"\|

		⚫	== Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==
	== RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr ==

	A ] has been filed concerning the '''conduct''' of {{User\|Rtmcrrctr}}. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. -- ] (]) 13:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC) <!-- Template:ConductDiscussion -->

	== Forum advice. ==

	I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm in a situation that I'd like to resolve ''before'' the arbitrary topic ban comes down.

	I am dealing with an admin who refuses to give me a straight answer about what behavior is acceptable on the election articles, which are under community probation. As far as I can tell, he is singling me out for negative attention and repeated threats. I find it impossible to comply with his requirements because he won't state any in advance, which makes the whole thing arbitrary. As such, there is nothing I can do to avoid a ban other than effectively banning myself, which I won't do.

	Now, I could go to ], but it seems to be more drama than substance. Is there a proper venue for this to be pursued? ] (]) 01:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
	* Will keep an eye on it. Bit unimpressed with parts of that conversation on TP's talkpage. ] (]) 17:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::I saw. Thanks for being a voice of reason. Ditto to MastCell, who managed to overcome his unhappiness with me to do what's right. ] (]) 02:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

	== On the subject of trolling... ==

	Could you take a look at the contributions of another editor? ] for the same warning or possible 24 hr or more block for same said behavior as well as possibly more serious issues? Thanks you.--] (]) 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
	* Are you talking purely about the discussion on SS247's talkpage or have you other diffs? ] (]) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
	**. The guy harasses people on their talk page, tells them to leave the site or else, then scrounges up a few admins in his pocket to harass the user he doesn't like even more. Way to go guys! Good work. ] (]) 22:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
	*** The reason I asked for more diffs is because I can't actually see anything to warn you for ... the SS247 talkpage conversation is nothing to write home about. ] (]) 22:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
	****The SS-247 talkpage is not the issue at all. I will prepare diffs for the request and return in a bit.--] (]) 22:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

	:::*Note that these guys have been going at this for quite a while, in particular disrupting ] (and also another discussion on that page). I tried collapsing the personal sidetrack, but ] uncollapsed it. It seems to me they both could stand to be put on ice and cool off a bit before causing further disruption. —{{SubSup\|] \|]\|]}} 22:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::*I have zero interest in that page and have no reason to return. My concern is with the repeated distortions and misinterpretations of policy and guidelines being dispensed by Amadscientist across the pedia. He seems to just make stuff up as he goes but expects others to join in his fantasy. I'm really too busy to care about this kind of childish behavior. Consider me gone from that topic. ] (]) 22:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::*I will be adding diffs shortly but wanted to point out that Kerfuffler had to be removed from a DR/N filing for disruption and incivil comments and still continued uncollapsing the hiding of his "off topic comments". I was the DR/N volunteer. (Talk:Christian right). As for Viriditas' continued accusations of my understanding of Misplaced Pages, these are apart of the gross mischaracterization and continued undermining of my work. Not what I thought we called collaboration. He seems to feel this is a politcal message board or forum and has continued the tactic of severe personal attacks against me (including name calling and character assination) in this manner that have no basis in fact and seem specificly designed as continuing a conflict of his own making to prolong disruption in a number of locations. With every accusation I have explained policy and guideline and I stand by those explanations. This isn't...as Dennis Brown put it (and in a really hilarious way, which he took upon himself to intervene in. I did not seek him out there) "...an evil plot by Amadscientist"! LOL!--] (]) 05:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::::*Good luck with that. I merely point out that of your last 100 edits, 97 of them are wikilawyering and/or arguing about other people's behavior. I suppose I'm being uncharitable characterizing the DRN volunteer list discussion that way, but it's been pretty <s>hostile</s> tense too. Dude, you need a break. —{{SubSup\|] \|]\|]}} 06:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Thank you for your input, as off base as it is. Being confronted by hostility on pages of such a controversial nature requires some explanation when intimidation tactics are being used. I also dispute your accusation of wikilaywering as I am not posting policy and guidelines to explain a reason for posting information, but to defend myself against exacting attacks on my understanding of Misplaced Pages. Good luck with your time on Wiki Ker, but I am now officialy asking you to stop following me to pages and to no longer engage with me in any way. The connection to Viriditas is obvious and your collapsing of a discussion that was actially about improving the article (albeit very long and extensive) was innappropriate and clearly biased.--] (]) 06:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	{{od}}To be fair, you did visit my talk page to trash talk Viriditas and accuse him of being a bad influence. I would suggest that escalating this feud would not be helpful. ] (]) 07:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	::Is that "fair"? Did I actually come to your page to do that? And is what I said "trash" talk? But thank you for the dots that seem to connect the three of you.

	::Black Kite , I will post my diffs in a formal complaint tomorrow afternoon. I tried to take the evening for myself, but this discussion should serve as an example of the manner in which these three are behaving. A perception of tag teaming to bash me when I have attempted to be fair minded. I am not an admin, but frankly this is becoming a clear attempt to drive me away from Misplaced Pages in a very dishonest manner. Sadly i felt the need to defend SS-247 in a number of ways but he is just not a reasonable editor to deal with. Misplaced Pages is not "Survivor" or "Big Brother" with a cash prize to the last editor standing and I now believe there is no redeaming quality that I can find with confrontational dishonesty. Seriously. Banning is not punative. It is meant to discurage bad conduct and behavior and clear violations of policy. I now support discouraging these editors from further disruption of the Encyclopedia.--] (]) 07:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Amadscientist, as I explained at some length on my talk page, I feel that blocking is usually a bad idea and banning is acceptable only as a last resort when nothing else works. As such, I have never recommended banning you, and I'd be as hesitant to recommend blocking you as I would anyone else. As such, your wild accusations about my tag-teaming with Viriditas to drive you away from Misplaced Pages are completely out of touch with reality. I am explicitly not out to get you, so I would appreciate it if you didn't try to make an enemy out of me by spreading these claims. I don't think I've ever even ''suggested'' that you leave Misplaced Pages, much less tried to force you to.
	:::My first thought is that you're confusing me with Viriditas, but the truth is that those accusations don't stick even when applied to him. The point I was trying to make with my previous comment here is that you seem to be intentionally engaging with him even though you two don't get along. Maybe you should just disengage. That's what I did with one editor, going so far as a voluntary interaction ban, and it's worked out for both of us. I am trying to offer you helpful advice based on what I've been through. Please take it as such. ] (]) 07:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	::: , , , ? Just a thought. And I was asking you to voluntarily take a break. —{{SubSup\|] \|]\|]}} 07:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	::You are a disruptive, incivil editor, who's aims are very clear. Your difs show nothing of note accept to futher your conflict which I seriously believe is in retaliation to some sense of unfairness you percieve. I think you are not of any real value to the encyclopedia and have the same "message board" mentality of SS and V. I support a topic ban, or block/ban of all three of you, but that is not what I am here to discuss. I am here specificly to complain about Wikistalking.harasment and personal attack by another editor. Please feel free to make your complaint seperate from mine and again please stop interacting with me. Don't use my name, my username or refer to me in any manner unless you are making a formal comlplaint to this Admin against me. I see you as simply furthering a conflict that should never have occured and you seem very much to be as disruptive as the other two.--] (]) 08:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::Ever since I mentioned the bad-mouthing, Amadscientist has focused his attention on my recent article talk page comments, adding hostile responses to them. This is precisely the sort of stalking-like behavior that he exhibited with Viriditas and that I've now repeatedly suggested that he stop. ] (]) 08:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

	I now have lost all faith in you. I support your removal from the project ( the encyclopedia) and advised editors to stop facilitating you and make formal complaints. I support a topic ban of you at least and an idef block for dishonest and disruptive editing and even a full ban for life. You have an agenda as clear as day and have dug yourself into the Christian Right article.--] (]) 08:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	:Sheesh, this is like a family reunion. Do I know you guys in RL? Are we related? Please, can we all stop this and hit the reset button? We're all here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Let's get back to that and stop sniping at each other, OK? Amadscientist, I see now that I have really set you off. I didn't realize that I was poking you with a stick, but it appears that's what I have done. I want to apologize for stressing you out and making you feel like you were under attack. ] (]) 09:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	: {{like}} Good comment.--v/r - ]] 13:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	::Funny you should say that Viriditas.....I have tons of family in Hawaii. If you have native Hawaiian ancestry, we may well be related. ( We certainly are about as equally strong minded...which could explain the sort "]" forming from our discussions) From our first encounter I thought it would actualy be great to interact with someone in Hawaii again, but we never really had a chance to see the things we have in common due to the things we don't. I looked and it appears I <s>never added my name to</s> am a member of the Hawaii WikiProject. I accept the apology in the spirit it was offered and retract mt request that you stay of my talkpage. Feel free to address concerns there again as I am most certain we will still be working on many of the same articles in the future.--] (]) 20:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::You're both pretty bad ass, I'm impressed.--v/r - ]] 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::Amadscientist, in the same spirit, I'd like to apologize. When I mentioned what happened on my talk page, I had no idea it would offend you this much and did not intend to do so. We're not going to agree on everything but we're both trying to edit the same encyclopedia, so let's keep it impersonal. ] (]) 22:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::Agreed. Full computer dump of all past situations. Reset in progress.
	::::I would also like to extend an apology to both Viriditas and StillStanding-247 if I prolonged the agony.--] (]) 22:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I will also degauss that memory, and hope that we can interact more positively going forward. —{{SubSup\|] \|]\|]}} 22:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
	Sorry for the out-of-the-blue comment - but having just noticed this thread, thanks for the outbreak of sanity and good will! ] (]) 00:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

	== Editor is back at it ==

	Hello there. Recently you rejected a proposal to block an editor (as seen ). While I realize you felt a block would be of little help since the edit warring may have taken place over a week, rather than, say a day, I thought I would let you know the editor is back at it (check out this ). IMO, a block, even for an editor who may not access WP daily and therefore the block may not do much good, 1) sends a signal that their behavior is not helpful and 2) it's difficult for us to guess when the editor might attempt to access WP next, and therefore, even a short block may do some good. Instead, I'm now having to deal with this editor again, who obviously disregards warnings and invitations for discussion (as well as edit notices, which is why I'm reverting the editor's edits). ] (]) 01:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
	:Admin noticeboard for vandalism is leaving the user hang. They in fact just removed them selves from the 3RRNB as seen . ] (]) 03:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

⚫	==Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion==
	Hello, Black Kite. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:\|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:Al-Ahbash\|The discussion is about the topic ].}}<!--Template:NPOVN-notice--> Thank you. -- ] (])		Hello, Black Kite. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:\|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:Al-Ahbash\|The discussion is about the topic ].}}<!--Template:NPOVN-notice--> Thank you. -- ] (])

Revision as of 12:45, 24 September 2012

Talk

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Black Kite. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Al-Ahbash. Thank you. -- McKhan (talk)

NFCC page

I do not get how you can see a consensus. Even the editor who initially made the change to the guideline said anyone was free to revert and that a new discussion should be opened on the issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, I cannot anywhere see any consensus (or even significant opinion) that NFCC8/NFCI1 should not apply to usage other than in infoboxes. If you can show me such I'd be grateful. This has been a longstanding consensus guideline and I don't see why the addition of the footnote to the NFC page is such a problem. I'm not desperately wedded to it; I wouldn't revert again if another editor re-removed it. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Except the disagreement is over whether such images already satisfy NFCC#8 under the provision in the guideline that critical commentary of the work allows inclusion of the cover art for visual identification. It is not about whether NFCC8 applies to the images, but whether the guideline allows their use in pages on those who created the work where the work is the subject of critical commentary. This footnote is about changing the guidelines to reflect the position of those editors who only support or tolerate the inclusion of such images on articles specifically about the work.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If you consider a musical artist, then in any well-rounded article there will be critical commentary of many of their works. Given that these works already justify a non-free image in their own article, there cannot be a justification to re-use it (NFCC3a also applies here) unless there is critical commentary of the cover art itself (which is possible, but rare). Remember, NFCC8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The topic in this article is the musical artist, not the cover art. However, non-free music samples may be a different matter; compare, for example, visual artists, where there are often multiple non-free images of their work in their articles - but these individual works do not have their own articles and they are contributing to the understanding of the work of the artist. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that position has been agreed to by any sort of consensus. There is an understanding that non-free images should be used sparingly, but this would not inherently preclude cover art from being included in these cases. Your analogy is taking the extreme example where this would be akin to the guideline's restriction regarding lists, while ignoring more limited cases where an image of a particularly definitive work in the history of the subject is being included when the same is not being done for more trivial works.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying they can never be used in that way - merely that there has to be a good reason why a piece of cover art is needed if an album is being discussed, over and above being used for identification only (and thus failing NFCC8). If editors don't provide a really good rationale for that, it needs to be disallowed. Black Kite (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)