User talk:BigHaz/Archive 15

List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)
Hi BigHaz. In March you closed the AfD discussion (link) for List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) as "userfy" per my request. It took me four months – mostly because I was too lazy to work on it – but I think the list is finally presentable. Of course, it's not perfect – it's not even good – but it's improved to the point where I think reintroducing it is justified.

The version that was listed and (in effect) deleted at AfD was cluttered, violated multiple sections of the MoS, and was a swarming mass of red. It looked like this. The current version looks like this.

My main changes to the list are:
 * 1) I rewrote the introduction.
 * 2) I updated the whole list in April (to correspond to the German-language version) and once more updated the section titled "The 2000s" today.
 * 3) I added a "Notes" and "Further reading" section (the latter taken from the de.wikipedia article).
 * 4) I removed all names (about 30%) that have a corresponding article in neither the English- nor German-language Wikipedias.

There are a few reasons that I think reintroduction is appropriate at this point:
 * Despite the (kind of) unanimous "delete" (or rather, "remove from the mainspace") verdict at AfD, I believe most would not object to the existence of some kind of list of German actors in the mainspace. See, e.g., this discussion at WikiProject Germany.
 * The List of actors from Germany (a much shorter and less organised list) was recently deleted at AfD (link). In the discussion, the nominator characterised the userfied list as the "good, comprehensive list" ... "which would have been worth keeping".
 * Three issues were raised in the AfD for the longer (1895-present) list: incompleteness, number of redlinks, and redundance to the category.
 * Incompleteness. Wikipedia, as a project, is and always will be incomplete. Yes, this list will never become a featured list (unless it's significantly refocused), but that's no reason to delete it.
 * Collection of redlinks. The current version of the list has a substantially higher proportion of bluelinks. In addition, all of the redlinks correspond to articles on de.wikipedia which can be translated.
 * Redundance to the category. The list is not redundant to the category as it is subdivided by era, gender, and (from 1946-1990) country.

Has there been sufficient change that reintroduction is warranted? I think one can judge that based on whether the reintroduced page would be subject to deletion per CSD G4. Reintroduction is justified in my opinion, but I'd like to hear your point of view.

Also, if reintroduced, I think the title must be modified to one of the following nine:


 * List of German actors
 * List of German actors from 1895
 * List of German actors (1895 - present)


 * List of actors in German cinema
 * List of actors in German cinema from 1895
 * List of actors in German cinema (1895 - present)


 * List of notable actors in German cinema
 * List of notable actors in German cinema from 1895
 * List of notable actors in German cinema (1895 - present)

The reason I suggest the phrasing "actors in German cinema" is because the list includes some non-German individuals (I can't be sure who without checking every entry) and because the list is not just a directory of actors but also traces the history of German cinema.

I would appreciate your thoughts on these matters. Thanks in advance, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look as soon as I can. I'm trying to resurrect an iPod right at the moment, but you're next on the list :P BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can accept being behind an iPod. At least it's not something like a toaster. ;) Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A preliminary look certainly backs up the claim that it's greatly improved over what was userfied. Speaking purely for myself, I would be interested to see whether it holds up as an article, although you may want to shop around to get some more opinions, since I'm only one man. One quick suggestion I'd make would be that it might be worth it to get some of the areas on the list with more red links (the "early sound" and Third Reich areas seem redder to me than the others) a bit more populated with stubs before moving it back into article space. Just a few sentences on a handful of actors should do it, as well as serving to demonstrate that there's enough activity to prevent it being a massive list of redlinks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking over it. I'll browse through some of the German language articles, pick out a couple that seem especially notable, check to make sure that sources actually exist, and write a paragraph or two for each (it'll also give me a chance to work on my slowly fading German skills). Maybe I'll even ask for some help from members of WikiProject Germany. In addition, I suspect that this list does not exhaust en.wikipedia's coverage of German actors. I'm sure there are more than a few pages in Category:German actors which I could add to the list to make it bluer. This may take a little while (given all the other large and small projects I have), but then again, there's really no rush. Thanks again, Black Falcon (Talk) 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If your German starts to desert you, give me a shout and I'll see what I can do. I make no guarantees, since I'll be quite a busy man in the coming months, but as long as the articles aren't massively technical I should be able to do something. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I might just do that. I'm fairly good at translating content into English from German and the Romance languages (except Portuguese) but, to put it bluntly, suck at the reverse. It's the same in speech ... I can make sense of French, German, Italian, and Spanish, but can only actually converse in German. Oh well, c'est la vie. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Natacha Atlas
Whatever a barnstar is, I'd give one to you for deleting citation of Atlas as the first Arabophone pop star. What ahistorical folly! (She's a great singer, but not the first.) Cheers, Dogru144 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. That article's in need of a pretty thorough overhaul, I think. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

An important unblock
Could you please unblock the IP address 202.76.162.34? I need that address. I use it at school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc iindyysgvxc (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Is there a reason you can't log into the account you've contacted me with? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to use that IP address at school. It's my school address, so there! Jc iindyysgvxc 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't quite answer my question. As far as I can tell, the block on that IP at the moment would allow you to log in using your account and continue to edit Wikipedia. The only thing you can't do at the moment is edit without logging in. Is there a reason why you can't log in from school? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can, but I don't want to. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's not a good reason to unblock the IP. It takes about 10 seconds to log in with an account, so it really isn't a major disability to you to do so. The IP in question has been blocked since it was being used repeatedly for vandalism, and unblocking it risks precisely the same thing happening again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why am I even supposed to log in? I can do things that only accounts can do - and I don't really wanna do those things. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This page sums it up better than I can. Among other things, you're able to start new articles and generally join the community if you log in. I note, for example, that you can't be an administrator unless you're logged in. Also, if you're logged in then you won't suffer any "collateral damage" when your school's IP is blocked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We might as well just shorten the block, then. 124.180.16.217 08:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Again, there's nothing to stop you registering an account, logging in and editing. Laziness is not a reason to lift or shorten a block. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But the year 12's at my school leave early. I need that block to be lifted before they leave. If they leave before the block runs out, something bad will happen to me. And now I hardly have anywhere to edit Wikipedia, because a few weeks ago, my computer broke down. 124.176.191.127 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that. Firstly, "something bad will happen to me" isn't a reason to lift a ban. What precisely will happen to you if the block isn't lifted before the 12s leave? More importantly, the fact that your computer broke down doesn't matter at all. See the thing at the top right corner of the screen which says "Log in"? Click on that and you'll be able to log in from whichever computer you happen to be at. The only circumstances under which you won't be able to edit is if you aren't logged in. Given that it takes about 2 seconds to log in, I don't see why we're having such a major issue about this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All right! But it's your fault - and the fault of every other administrator on Wikipedia - if that bullet that was shot into my head and will kill me in five months does so! Besides, it's my birthday in ten days, and you shouldn't be mean to someone on their birthday! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.132.145 (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
 * For the umpteenth time, why can you (or anyone else at your school) not take the two seconds required to create an account or log in with one you already have? I do it every time I come to this site and it's not an inconvenience at all. If you expect me to believe that one of the year 12s at your school shot you in a way that will kill you in five months, I don't in the slightest. I also have no intention of "being mean to someone on their birthday", but likewise neither does the fact that it's your birthday entitle you to take illegal drugs, commit murder, rob someone or break the speed limit. In much the same way, the fact that it's allegedly your birthday on a given date doesn't mean that an IP will be unblocked when that block was done entirely in a manner supported by policy. If you can come up with a single reason grounded in policy for the block to be lifted, I'll consider it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't think of one, though. Could you give me a couple of policy-related reasons for unblocking? 124.180.75.102 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (resetting indent) Per the blocking policy, we see the following. Accounts/IPs can be blocked when there is persistent vandalism. That's shown clearly in the case of the IP you want unblocked. The only circumstances under which a block should be lifted are: (1) It shouldn't have been applied in the first place or (2) In order to change the manner of the block being implemented. We can dispense with the second option, since I have no intention of changing the nature of your block and neither should I without checking with the person who blocked you in the first place. In relation to the first reason, there was a clear pattern of vandalism from that IP, and the block was entirely justified. Given that you can edit from home and also are able to log into an account whenever you wish, you don't have a leg to stand on. Additionally, bear in mind that the account you have used has been warned on a number of occasions regarding its behaviour, so I would suggest that there is not only no evidence to assume that you wouldn't vandalise, but there is also evidence to assume that you would. Any questions? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. They decided to change the day that the 12s leave, so I'm safe. That bullet has disintegrated. But I still can't wait such a long time for the address to be unblocked! Could you please unblock it now? Besides, I wasn't the only one editing with that address. Several other kids edited with that address as well! 124.181.253.139 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may have misunderstood. You're not going to have to "wait...a long time for the address to be unblocked." It simply won't be unblocked. There's no policy-based reason to unblock it, and I have no interest in going against the policies on this one. I'm not necessarily blaming you for the vandalism from that IP. All I'm saying is that there was vandalism from that IP, and the response to that vandalism was to block the IP. You can clearly edit from other IPs and even by registering an account, so why does it even bother you? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Brian Kennedy...
..is coming to Australia. Saw a banner on a noticeboard at uni. Didn't think young'uns would be interested in his music, but there you go. Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm stunned. I really am. Nice voice and all, but not someone I'd expect to be advertised on a uni campus. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost arbitration report
Thank you for adding a word to the Signpost arbitration report. I don't know how that happened. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. I do that kind of thing in my day job, so it's an impulse which often comes up here and to good use. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

11:11 (numerology)
Although I agree that this is a silly subject that should not be on Wikipedia, the article has survived an AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11 phenomenon. Feel free to nominate it again. You might also check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11 (2nd nomination).TheRingess (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Righto. When I gird up my loins, I'll probably try to run it through AfD again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for nominating it. *sigh*  I hope that this time it gets deleted and stays deleted.TheRingess (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Either that or that it actually gets expanded and rewritten to be a halfway decent article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. It would be nice if someone could establish its notability as a belief.  The only argument for its notability right now is coverage on the program Coast to Coast.  I'm not convinced that coverage establishes its notability, at least not on a par with the superstitions people have/had about black cats, or the beliefs people have about the Loch Ness monster, crop circles, ufos, etc.  Several contributors have tried to use the article to promote their forums (see the discussion page and it's archives).TheRingess (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, are the references to Geller and the various internet forums sufficient to establish notability for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRingess (talk • contribs)
 * My opinion is still that a separate article isn't necessarily the best option here. The internet forums I haven't yet had the chance to follow up on thoroughly, but as far as Geller is concerned, all it proves is that the master self-publicist believes it. I don't think that every single theory Geller subscribes to is important enough for an article if that's the only thing the theory has going for it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Smoking
Sorry, I got a little carried away. These anon comments are getting out of hand, though. Realkyhick 22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Thankfully, none of them have even attempted to address the issues, so they won't be taken into account. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)