User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 2

re: your RFD nomination on Animal/Cattle Mutilation
Thank you for a well-researched and very thorough nomination. That was excellent work. I wish everyone working the RfD page shared your attention-to-detail. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Strategic management
You've made a recent contribution to the article on strategic management, and I've made a proposal to revert that article to a prior version that existed before vandalism in July 2006. Please see Talk: Strategic management. Please add your comments to that talk page if you're concerned about this. Thank you. --SueHay 03:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AF1 pop culture
Thanks for actually showing an interest in the article, rather than just in deleting the pop-culture "list" page, and thanks for adding the reference. I was the one who left the short summarry in the origianl article when I forked the material off, olong with the VC-25 article. I didn't actually write the summary, just edited it down some. Had I been aware of the stir the simple act of spinning off the notable pop culture list (we really do delete the non-notable items in WP:AIR, contary to the opinions of the supporters of the AFD), I might have reconsidered. I actually thought other parts of Wikipedia abided by the same courtesies we at WP:AIR are expected to follow. How stupid of me. Can you believe I really thought if someone objected to the article, notable listings or not, that they would post a note on the talk page, or at least browse the history to try to contact the editors who created or worked on the list, rather than go straight to the AFD process? And here I thought "Assume Good Faith" applied to everyone! I didn't know people who didn't like so-called cruft lists were exempt from that.

However, you have showed me courtesy, even though you don't support seem to supprot the article, and are making an effort to help the original article. THanks again for showing me not everyone on Wiki is like these guys, that people here can still be courteous to others not in their little circle. - BillCJ 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article survived the AfD - no consensus. Do you have any specifice suggestions for me on where to go from here? I'm not opposed to merging the content back in to the main AF1 article, but I do feel it is too long in its current form. I believe the items there are notable, or at least were considered notable by more than one editor in the past, so I respected that even if I thought the item should not be there personally. If we do leave the itmes where they are, what suggestions do you have for improving it further? Thanks for your time. - BillCJ 13:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I am posting another request on my talk page. Please check there also. Thanks. - BillCJ 14:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Then my question is this
Then why are claims from the Taliban etc not represented? I have already given examples of this. Why the double standard?Pubuman 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no double standard. A "double-standard" requires that editors working on Sri Lanka-related topics also actively work on Afghanistan-related articles.  This is not the case.  Additionally, I looked at the OEF and War in Afghanistan (2001–present) articles, and they seem to be mostly descriptive (i.e., they contain few "claims" by one side or the other).  Where relevant, however, some statements by the Taliban are included (e.g., "the Taliban rejected this ultimatum, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking bin Laden to the September 11 attacks").
 * The lesser representation of Taliban claims may be due to a number of factors: irrelevance of such claims to the scope of the article, the lack of reliable sources to document such claims, and/or lack of editorial interest in adding and incorporating this information. Whatever the reason, the perceived existence of problems with one group of articles is not a reason to allow the same problem in other articles.  When an issue is disputed, Wikipedia policy requires that the claims of all major sides be presented.  Statements that do not present controversial claims as fact, but rather appropriately attribute them (e.g., "according to the LTTE") are neutral. -- Black Falcon 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic entity, therefore there should be consistency throughout all its articles. Therefore a double standard does not require the same editors to be working on both articles. That is simply wrong. And further I was talking of all terrorist groups, not just the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. I have no problem with adding both sides of the story so to speak. But what I have a problem with editors using the official LTTE websites, or websites that are clearly of LTTE origin as reliable sources. The Taliban consistently claimed they had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and September 11th attacks, however that has not been stated. Nor are the numbers civillian deaths that were claimed by the Taliban. This is with very good reason. And that reason being there is no independently verifiable stats to support their claims. All there is is the claims made on their official websites etc. The GOSL claims are only published after they have been verified and rightly so. However with the LTTE claims their official website is enough? What difference is their between the official sources of the islamic terrorist groups and the LTTE? It should not matter what either side claims, what should be presented are the verifiable facts, and that isnt happening because a a particular few editors insist on propaganda and biased material. Pubuman 09:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, there should be consistency, but a claim of a "double standard" implies the existence of a deliberate conspiracy by editors to note LTTE claims and withold others, which is false. You write, "The Taliban consistently claimed they had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and September 11th attacks, however that has not been stated."  Well, per NPOV, it should be stated.  You write, "Nor are the numbers civillian deaths that were claimed by the Taliban".  Where relevant, those numbers should be presented as well.  They should be presented not as facts but as what they really are: disputed claims.  You write, "GOSL claims are only published after they have been verified", but it is well recognised that GOSL frequently overestimates LTTE casualties in battle, just as the LTTE overestimates GOSL casualties.  You are right in arguing that "what should be presented are the verifiable facts".  Claims by one or another side are not facts; but the existence of such claims is fact.  It is a verifiable fact that the Taliban deny any connection with the September 11 attacks.  Even though the claims themselves may be false, the existence of such claims is a verifiable fact.  Finally, as to your last sentence, I would like to encourage you to assume good faith on the part of editors in the absence of clear evidence to contrary.  Those who note LTTE claims are merely adhering to the NPOV policy.  -- Black Falcon 16:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's my point exactly, the numbers given by the government aren't presented until they are given by neutral sources (i.e BBC) where as the official LTTE websites are used as sources for the LTTE claims, do you not understand that fundamental difference? Pubuman 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But please understand the other fundamental difference: the numbers given by BBC are presented as fact, whereas the numbers given by LTTE are presented as claims. The LTTE website is reliable as a source for its own claims.  A statement like, "The airstrike killed 10 people (BBC).  The LTTE claimed the dead were schoolchildren." is perfectly acceptable.  So is, "The airstrike killed 10 people (BBC) who, according to the GOSL, were new recruits to the LTTE.  The LTTE denied the claim and identified the dead as schoolchildren." Note that the LTTE claim is not presented as fact, nor is the GOSL claim.  Both are presented as what they are: claims.  The only thing that is presented as fact is: the airstrike killed 10 people.  -- Black Falcon 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your requirement for a "double standard" is simply wrong, A double standard is when two different standards are used to judge the validity or quality of something. Your def does not really even make sense. But lets leave that there and discuss the important issue here, and not symantics. But my point is there is no place for such claims on an encylcopedia. Regardless of where it comes from. Why should an encyclopedia present claims? And if the sources used are the LTTE website then that is still unreliable for reporting facts. So is the GOSL websites (just as an example) but it seems to me that this isn't a source that is really used so it's not really relevant.Pubuman 08:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is your point, then your point is counter to one of our most fundamental policies: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. (see WP:NPOV)
 * Why should an encyclopedia present claims? Because sometimes we can't be sure of the truth!  Because claims by different groups are an important aspect of politics!  Yes, the LTTE website is not reliable for reporting facts, but I wrote above that it "is reliable as a source for its own claims".  Not facts, but claims.  If the LTTE website says that the LTTE supports X, then we can take that as reliable.  "According to the LTTE, the Sri Lankan government engages in human rights violations."  That is a fact.  Does the GOSL engage in HR violations?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it is a fact that the LTTE claims the GOSL does.  -- Black Falcon 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough, but shouldn't we rely on fact as much as possible? And only use these claims as you say when we arent fully aware of the facts? It is my view that claims are over represtented on these articles, not just by the LTTE, but claims as a whole (i.e. GOSL and LTTE)Pubuman 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Facts are neutral; claims are not.  Ideally, we would use only facts and would not have to constantly append sentences with "according to the LTTE/GOSL".  Unfortunately, especially when dealing with political conflicts, facts are often hard to come by.  In such cases, where there is a dispute over facts, we have to resort to claims.  And, in order to remain neutral, we have to present the claims of all major sides. -- Black Falcon 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your response required in achieving consensus
Hi please respond here --> Talk:Assassinations_and_murders_attributed_to_the_LTTE  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Talk 06:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD
"The payer must" isn't game guide material. As you have said, the game guide notions have been removed. "The player must" doesn't tell you how to play the game. It isn't really a problem, is it? Bowsy (review me!) 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You did a good job writing the introductory paragraph, but aren't the games decided by the colour of space a player lands on? Bowsy (review me!) 08:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing, seeing as you did such a good job with the original MP, could you try doing some prose for the other mg lists? Bowsy (review me!) 08:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sideshow Cinema
I don't quite understand what you've done on this article. How have your edits improved it? Can we just get rid of the Index Box at the top of the page? I don't even know if that's possible. Is this your final edit to how the actors are arranged? I will have to repair links to Sideshow Cinema actors from other pages and I don't want to have to do this too many times. Dwain 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done two things. First, I changed all the section headings into subsection headings.  These are still linkable (see, for example, Sideshow Cinema), so there is no need to repair links on other pages.  The only exceptions are Edward Eck and Steven Mullahoo because I changed the (sub)section titles from "Ed Eck" and "Steve Mullahoo", respectively.  My second change was to format almost all of the "External links" as references per .  This also shortened the article without causing any loss of information.  It is possible to remove or alter the table of contents.  To specify its removal, simply type  before the first section or subsection heading.  Cheers, Black Falcon 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk
Hi, it's Izzy259. The reason I added User talk was because me and Scepia have inserted practical jokes to our user page, and I wanted a better trick hyperlink than Practical joke. So I made that page that only people who fell for the joke would know they were tricked. —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heretical (website)
Thanks - fat finger (or thin brain) trouble. Springnuts 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

your very thoughtful remarks
Black Falcon, I just want to pay you a compliment regarding your arguments in and handling of this AFD. I'm probably not going to !vote there because I really don't have a fully formed opinion about it right now. It does seem that at least one person is offended by the very nomination (on second thought I may have misread this user, but still); I hope I can balance that by offering my observation that you've kept everything quite honest and fair. — coe l acan — 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

 * Thanks for voting in my RfA. I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns.  I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor.  Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 17:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

invitation
Abridged talk 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kya: Dark Lineage
The article isn't even close to complete. I've merely paused in my work on it while I and the rest of the Devil May Cry taskforce raise Devil May Cry and Devil May Cry 3 to FA-class. Check back in a month and Kya will probably be hovering near the edges of FA-class as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran War
I could use some help here. Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War--Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done some too. amazing the tendency of WP people to put their head in the sand--about all sorts of unpleasant things. DGG 17:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there's little point. If the current trend continues, I doubt any admin would be willing to override such a majority, no matter how ill-founded. I am particularly amazed by the statement that "just because we have sources on something doesn't mean there should be an article about it" as the presence of reliable sources is the very foundation of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Black Falcon 17:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trevor Loflin
Please note that the section of SAT to which the page on Trevor Loflin was merged has been deleted, and for good reason; the information on Trevor Loflin was entirely inappropriate in that article. I have nominated the article on Mr. Loflin for deletion a second time. Based on your participation either in the article on Trevor Loflin or in the previous afd, you may wish to participate in the article's present deletion discussion. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Observation
You indicate that you find the possibility of discounting "RFA votes" (RFA is emphatically not a vote, but that's another matter) "dangerously tyrannical." Let me ask a question. Given your comment, we seem to hold similar views on the good qualities necessary for adminship. In fact, it's a safe argument that these views are shared by the vast majority of Wikipedians. I would also note that I did not expressly suggest that "votes" would be discounted, rather, I said that I would "place the burden squarely on people who oppose a candidacy to demonstrate why and in what way it would be a bad thing for someone to have access to the tools." This suggests that I would actually take the time to read the oppose !votes. In a system where "votes are counted" it isn't actually incumbent on the bureaucrat to do so. A counted vote isn't necessarily read. Just some thoughts, and thank you very much for participating. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I will try to clarify my concerns below:
 * Although I despise the notion of RFA being determined by a simple two-second vote check, the fact is that the percentage of support for a candidate is an excellent predictor of whether an RFA will succeed or fail when support is outside the 70-80% range. The only reason I referred to "RFA votes" was due to the way RFA is handled (numbered comments, a running tally, etc.). I also agree that we and most editors active at RFA hold similar criteria for judging sysops, and I should note that I am rather ambivalent about opposing your candidacy (explained below).
 * I do not believe bureaucrats should judge the validity of concerns raised by editors as long as those concerns pertain to the behaviour of an admin candidate. What would you do if you encountered arguments of the type, "Oppose. The candidate called another editor "dumb" two years ago."? Although that is not reason enough for me (and probably you as well) to oppose a candidate, it may be enough for others.
 * I agree with you that burden of proof should be on those who oppose a candidate, but only to a certain degree. I believe that those who oppose a candidacy must, unlike those who support it, provide an argument or at least reference the argument of another editor. However, I don't think that we should require that arguments opposing a candidate be convicing to others. For instance, describing an admin candidate as "aggressive" is a subjective determination that others may or may not agree with. However, I believe opposing a candidate on that basis to be perfectly valid.
 * Regarding numbers, you are correct that a "counted vote is not necessarily read" but the converse may also be true: a read vote is not necessarily counted. If forced to choose, I would rather my position were counted rather than read and ignored. Although voting and number-counting have their problems, they do provide a semi-objective means of gauging support for and opposition to a candidate. Moreover, given that RFAs rarely succeed without strong supermajority support, number-counting provides a safeguard that a substantial minority will not be too easily overruled.
 * I hope my comments above have made my position clearer. But here's where I'm ambivalent. Although I oppose your platform as I believe that it facilitates abuse of power, nothing in your behavior here, at the RFB, or elsewhere on Wikipedia suggests that you would abuse your power. However, that does not change the fact that I disagree with your proposed reforms of RFA, on which you have based your candidacy. -- Black Falcon 21:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather, you believe it would facilitate a hypothetical abuse of power, although that also presupposes having an abusive bureaucrat. The latter can occur regardless of the system. For my part I dislike being a number, but I suppose that was obvious. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Permit me another observation. Much of this debate turns on how much we should gratify the individual ego of each participant at RfA. I naturally take the view that the needs of the encyclopedia (the many) trump the needs of the one. RFA participation isn't an end in itself. That we haven't defined rational criteria there is an artifact from the old days when we gave the tools to anyone sensible–there wasn't a need to be explicit about it. As I said elsewhere, people shouldn't come to Wikipedia to participate in RFA, they should come to edit the encyclopedia. This isn't a massively multiplayer online role-playing game, although it gives the appearance of such now and then. To take your hypothetical example, someone who shows up at RFA and says "called me dumb two years ago, so oppose" is not there to help the encyclopedia. He's there to settle a score and gratify his ego. Now, someone who comes there and says "This user has a long history of incivility and does not work well with people" and shows an obvious pattern of abusive behavior not confined to his own experience, now that user is thinking broadly. Organizing as an RfC would hopefully encourage long-form responses of this kind, and perhaps promote constructive criticism for everyone's edification. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot disagree with the principles you've stated, but I don't see that your conclusion follows from them. Long-form responses are indeed the most constructive, but everyone has a different standard of what is "long-form". "Called someone dumb two years ago" is essentially an informal way of stating: the user has on at least one previous occasion been unable to restrain himself or his temper and thus may do so in the future. Who is to make the determination whether that argument is valid? If you and I feel that it is not valid, then we can support the candidate despite that one mistake. But what about those editors who sincerely cannot trust a user because of a prior history of one or more poor decisions or bad-faith actions? I should note here that I've deliberately chosen a borderline argument, which even I consider an extreme reason for opposing, but still think should be respected.
 * When it comes to interpretation of policy (as is the case at AFD), admins have rather broad discretion. I do not believe bureaucrats should have the same discretion in RFA. Policy can be clarified, discussed, and negotiated; trust usually cannot: it either exists or it doesn't, irrespective of the actions of a bureaucrat. Your proposed reform essentially seems to ask that editors present their various arguments on why a user should or should not be an admin and then let a bureaucrat decide. But that is not consensus. As much as we seek to avoid counting numbers, the notion of consensus is inherently tied to numbers.
 * Widening bureaucrats' discretion in closing RFAs (and thus making the process inherently more subjective) would only disaffection editors who feel that they are being ignored. I firmly believe that we should steer away from attempting to judge the validity of others' emotions in the absence of evidence that they were made in bad faith. -- Black Falcon 22:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you (in several places, but let me focus) on your final point. By establishing some fairly basic criteria (such as what I've outlined above), and by making it clear that bureaucrats will rule on that criteria, we draw much of the subjectivity from RfA. If we create a culture in which one slip from two years ago will be held against you at RfA, we will encourage people to avoid taking risks and to steer away from controversial areas. It's an old saw that no long-term admin could get re-elected these days, but there's a good deal of truth in it. It seems to me that you're adopting a moral equivalency vis-a-vis RfA that doesn't benefit the encyclopedia but insteads benefits individuals. We'll have to disagree on which goal is more important. Mackensen (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't misunderstand my position. My goal is not to fight for the rights of the individual on Wikipedia. I believe we share the same general goal, but disagree on how to reach it. If the only reason found to oppose a candidate is a mistake from 2 years ago, there is no doubt that that RFA should and will succeed. My concern is not to protect the feelings of one editors. Rather, it is to ensure that consensus or the lack thereof is not overruled by a bureaucrat (whether in good faith or bad). You wish to avoid the ego-gratifying votes of a few editors who are unlikely to affect the results of the RFA, but at the same time seemingly do not consider that bureaucrats are also consciously and/or subconsciously subject to the same desires. Despite its problems, RFA is currently a consensus-based process. Your proposal would change the format of RFA to be more like ArbCom, where evidence is presented in favour of or against an editor and a small group makes the final decision. That, and not concern for one person's ego, is the reason why I oppose your proposal. -- Black Falcon 23:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this on the main page, at least in part. Mackensen (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review, Tamilnet
Hi, I have asked for peer review of the above article your input will be appreciatedRaveenS 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your useful comments. I've incorporated them all RaveenS 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred Rogers Fairchild
Certainly.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Woop
Are you kidding? Replaced your prod with speedy. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * :) +Hexagon1 (t) 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sa'dah conflict
OK listen up I put 1,800 dead because that link that you refered to is more than two years old and the conflict has progresed since then. There are reports that state that up to 720 Yemeni soldiers alone have been killed. At least that many rebels have been if not more. So at least 1,500 should be put there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.116.171.227 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Mackensen's RFB
No worries; your comment was just fine, and it's not too far from my own feelings on the subject. The remark in my edit summary was intended as a reply to John, and when I got edit conflict-ed, I didn't think to change it before re-posting. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My post at User talk:Chidis
Obviously I didn't go through all of his edits..But several edits he made and I noticed were correct and though they were without proper citations, I believed those edits needed to be praised..Esp the one he made at the SL army article,saying Sinhalese were the first Asian people to defeat Portuguese in a battle, which is not only 100% true can be cited very easily..And let me take about figures he added to wikipedia..I am not in position to say all of those numbers are correct but some are certainly do,Such as 1500 LTTE cadres karuna took with him when he left LTTE..This actually came from Karuna's own words and I am sure we can find a reliable source for this..I don't know how many child soldiers LTTE recruited but this also has to be a big number,could be even more than 9000..So instead of reverting his edits, why didn't you ask him to back up his claims ?? May be he could have provided something for us given an opportunity. about this he should be definitely warned,sorry for not seeing it,obviously I can't follow all his edits in Wikipedia..finally, this can be either false or true..If these people had nothing to do with the LTTE, they might not have faced that fatal ending..May be security forces proved they were LTTE members,we never know,so instead of deleting it completely shouldn't we ask him to give citations ?? I mean there are worst articles with worst info, but still don't get deleted..There are blatant hoaxes in Wikipedia but no one even care to touch them..If you consider this, I don't think we can condemn this user for bad editing, at least he has not wasted our time by making blatantly POV articles and stupid(Sorry,there is no other words) templates..for vandalism we should warn him, for adding info without citations he does not deserve any warning..that is my thought on this.. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding info without citations doesn't deserve a warning unless the user has a prior history of vandalism (which Chidis' did at the time of RaveenS' warning). The fact that there are worse things on Wikipedia, and I should note that the edits by this user are one of the worst I've seen, is not an excuse for Chidis' behaviour. I don't dispute that some (maybe 5-10%) of his changes may have been acceptable, but the absolute majority were blatantly POV and pure vandalism. The obviousness of his vandalism, such as piping every link for LTTE to terrorist, his comment at human penis size, and deliberately introducing factual errors (changing 168 bombings to 1680 is just one example), does not leave me inclined to leave his edits and ask for citations. On the contrary, I think that taking such a weak stand against such obvious disruption would be counterproductive. If he wishes to do contribute constructively, he is still free to do so; he may reintroduce material that conforms to our policies on neutrality and attribution. I naturally wouldn't recommend warning a new user for adding unsourced material if it seemed it was made in good faith. However, in this case, Chidis' contributions history shows clear signs of the absence of good-faith attempts to improve articles. I deleted his statement that the "Sinhalese were the first Asian people to defeat Portuguese in a battle" for two reasons. First, I did not see it as overly relevant to an article on the Sri Lankan Army, at least in the way that he had added it to the article. Second, the fact of the statement being unsourced, combined with Chidis' prior history, made me inclined to delete the sentence before requesting proof from him. If the claim is true and verifiable, I have no objection to its reintroduction into the article as long as it is relevant to the topic and can be integrated into the text. Regarding the edit he made to Special Task Force, I'd say that one was the worst as he changed a direct quote from a reliable source to state something that the source contradicted. That the people may have had affiliation with the LTTE is not something for us to speculate on (to do so constitutes original research). I hope my lengthy comment clarifies why I acted as I did. -- Black Falcon 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice
Do you think I should be WP:BOLD and userfy the MPmg lists, or should I ask some more people? Henchman 2000 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that they were deleted. If I'm correct, then the deleting admin should probably be willing to userfy if you request it. If I'm wrong, could you please provide the link of the article you're referring to so that I can make a more informed judgment. Thanks, Black Falcon 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also note that if the articles are deleted, then whether the deleting admin does choose to userfy is entirely up to his or her discretion about whether he or she thinks you have a good reason for making the request. -- Black Falcon 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service, there is no reason those lists need to be in a user space. They were deleted: and putting them on a user space is just a form of ignoring the clear deletion of them from Wikipedia. RobJ1981 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Userfying them only for the purpose of keeping them in userpace is a violation of WP:NOT. However, if Henchman 2000 can provide a convincing argument that he will be able to modify the content of the articles in order to reintroduce them into the article mainspace in a manner that addresses the concerns raised at the AFD (i.e., merging the revised content somewhere), then userfication should not be an issue. That's why I wrote that whether an admin grants a request to userfy is contingent on the proffering of a good justification that the content could be modified and at some point reintroduced. -- Black Falcon 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So should I consult someone else or not? Henchman 2000 08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Question at my RfA
As my rfa is likely to be closed any time now, I figured I'd reply here to avoid edit conflicts and suchlike. I find arbitrary votes like Support, Oppose to be counterproductive to the idea of having a discussion to find consensus. Whenever I read RfAs the tags always give me the impression that the voter's opinion is final and I think all it serves to do is influence other's opinions and put people on one side of the bar or the other. I've always thought that 'consensus' was more of a discussion where people came to a compromise and generally agreed rather than saying "Yep, we have 80% support, that's fine". I know that's harder to do on an RfA where there is no middle ground, i.e. you either promote or you don't, and that opposers are sometimes challenged, but I think that the tags are encouraging a votelike system and assist in making RfA a numbers game.

It says at the top of the page that your rationale is more important than your vote, and yet we bold our votes and sometimes people just write that and nothing else! Or they simply write 'per x'... that's not a discussion, which is what I'd like RfA to be. That's just my take on it anyway. It might not be very coherent, I am writing this very late at night :) User:Veesicle 02:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Diff
Here's the diff of my statement about the cricket articles :. Go to the very bottom of the changes. It says "this is why I didn't speedy them. Thanks! --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion lists
I think you should put the region(s) somewhere on top on country sorting pages. Also, I believe you should enable more than one region. Greece, Turkey, Armenia should be grouped together (TAG team :) ), also Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran (and possibly Turkey) should be grouped together (AIA(T) Team), something like that. denizTC 08:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Matt Britt
I think you should endorse the last 2 views you made. Someone else endorsing them first would make it look like they wrote the views. Of course it doesn't matter much and there could be clarification, but with the already complicated process it'd be a lot easier if you just endorsed them first yourself. –Pomte 06:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA?
I think you'd be a strong candidate at WP:RFA, and I think your involvement with deletion discussions would be enhanced if you had the tools. Would you like me to nominate you? YechielMan 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your confidence in me. However, at the time, I have some personal matters to attend to, which I've been (probably not wisely) postponing. If you would consider nominating me in about a month, I'd happily accept. Thank you again, Black Falcon 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. When you're ready, if you remember, please leave me a note. YechielMan 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You will make a great admin RaveenS 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

PNC Template
Falcon, In your comments at the TfD you mentioned a willingness to keep the template if it would not be used until consensus on the content is reached. I would be willing to support this. My point of pushing the template so hard was to force a discussion, which has occured. Would you be willing to support keeping the template? Would you be willing to help keep the discussion on the text alive? --Kevin Murray 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0. Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina! —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

WP:N
I just reverted your change to WP:N nutshell Please read and talk about changes at Wikipedia_talk:Notability before making changes. Thanks :) Jeepday 17:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Filmography TFDs
Thanks for reminding me, I just hadn't set my bot to orphan them all yet. I'm about halfway done, but I have to go out now. If I don't remember in a few days to finish it off, poke me again. Thanks again. ^ demon [omg plz] 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Prodding of articles created by User:Screechy111 (reply)
Thanks for the heads-up on the new spin-off (sorry ;o)) versions. I suppose the best thing to do is let all the articles go through the Proposed Deletion process first, and then go for AfD if needed. I did go as far as checking if the programme was some sort of Youtube spoof of Coronation Street, which is about the only way I could think that these programmes could exist,  but I couldn't find anything. Cheers. Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Something to work on
I have managed to get the LMPmgs userfyed here if you would like to help in making them acceptable for the encyclopedia again. 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking to try and get them back into the mainspace as they were originally, failing that, merged into the main articles. I will notify master diablo as you have many good sources to help us. I think we can expect Advance on the mainspace very soon. Henchman 2000 18:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Postcodes in Australia page
I'm sorry about the abuse of process thing. I still don't get this whole "directory" thing. It's explained badly, and every time I have asked no one seems to be able to give an adequate explanation for what it is. That criterion has been cited without reason to justify a lot of deletions, and I'm not happy with it. Thanks for clarifying your position though - I thought you were just applying the US decision to these pages, which is obviously not what you are doing. So sorry for any misunderstandings on my part. JRG 04:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - that's helpful. I understand where you're coming from now. JRG 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientizzle RfA
Now that's the kind of support comment we need more of. – Riana ऋ 08:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Black Falcon, thanks for participating in my successful RfA; sorry if it caused you some stress, from the heated responses of my defenders. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cathy O'Brien nominated for deletion (again)
Hi. Since you contributed to the article's first deletion nomination discussion, I thought you might want to contribute to its second nomination. Thanks. -Eep² 04:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:List of India-related topics
Thanks for your message. I have gone ahead reverted the move to projectify this list. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Cities on the Great Lakes
Hi. You created the article List of Cities on the Great Lakes a few days ago with the edit summary "listifying category" ... that article is most redundant to Great Lakes. I was going to propose its deletion, but decided not to as the lists aren't entirely identical. In your opinion, is it worth merging the two? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the list can be improved to hold more information such as which lake the city is on, which state and country its on and etc. Perhaps population too. It may also be renamed to List of cities along the Great Lakes. Each city should ideally also contain a citation that it is on the Great Lakes. -- Cat chi? 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks
—Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

RfA comment
Good evening (GMT time); thanks for your comments in my RfA - that overview of exactly where those XfD templates are to be placed is extremely helpful, and if I ever forget again, I'll be sure to check back to your comment!

Cheers, Anthony  22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, well, warning, I guess.
Experiments are "legal" as long as they do not disrupt wikipedia. Disrupting pages (including pages on experiments) does constitute disrupting wikipedia, as does edit warring.

Well, now you know, so as long as you don't actually go edit-war with me on Proposed adminship, things will be fine.

When you're busy discussing on the talk page, don't also edit war on the associated page, else nothing is won. (except you irritate a lot of people).

Finally note that you only need consensus of the community to do stuff that actually puts a load on the community. Experiments don't do that, and can't have consensus anyway, per definition. That's why they're experiments. You do the experiments, see what works, then get consensus to apply what works.

Though in the case of RFA reform, due to there being a dug-in RFA community, we might end up having to ask Jimbo to step in and enforce changes. So well, in part, what happens is entirely up to you.

--Kim Bruning 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooooohhhhh, you asked for it. I shall call down the lightning from the heavens to STRIKE YOU DOWN WHERE YOU STAND.


 * *waits*


 * *crickets chirp*


 * All-righty... back to the drawing board on that approach then. Maybe we should talk? :)


 * I guess I was a little pre-emptive with the warning thing, folks tend to enjoy edit-warring so much these days, I thought like "let's get ahead of the game a bit here" . What I'm basically trying to say is that if folks want to experiment with proposals for adminship, and they don't actually hurt anything, that'll be ok, right? :-)


 * --Kim Bruning 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC) *walks away muttering about people who stay seated*

Just dropping you a note
Thanks for your sharp eye in catching the copyvio on Kevin Downey, Jr.. While, yes, it was indeed a copyright violation, the article didn't need to be speedily deleted; all I had to do was revert back to the last edit before the copyvio was introduced.

As this is something that any editor, not just an admin, can do, I thought I'd drop you a line so that future copyvios could avoid the perpetually backlogged CAT:CSD; that makes our jobs that much easier. Thanks! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Prodding lists
Shame you didn't drop me a note, but mass afd nominations will not work. What we need to do is to prodd and afd them one by one, unfortunatly. I suggest prods, then afds. Let's not be too ambitious, if we prod/afd dozens this will steer somebody into defending them. Let's take a few per week, starting with prods, then afd if it is removed, one per day is good. After 2-3 weeks we should have all of them deleted, than we can start a mass afd again showing case by case they are junk... PS. I'd support also wikiprojectfying them, but in the mainspace they are junk making new editors waste time on updating them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If we would go with projectify, than we should go to one project - perhaps something related to vandalism fighting in general. Otherwise not only we would have to ask hundreds of wikiprojects (some of which would ignore us), but some lists have no related wikiprojects... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but honestly I don't have time to do it the proper way, so I guess I'll just drop the matter - other than deleting the few lists related to projects I am involved in (particulary Polish, as consensus to get rid of it was reached at WP:PWNB weeks ago).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New chemistry COTM
Hi Black Falcon, we made Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance our new Chemistry COTM. Thanks for updating the entry. I know you didn't vote, but if you're interested in helping, please pitch in. Thanks, Walkerma 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering to help out. If you're not a chemist, it would probably be best to see if you can find uses for things - a significant use for something would allow us to remove the "why important" tag.  I suspect that at least 90% of the chemicals in the list have a significant use, though in some cases that use may be fairly academic.  If you can't find something quickly, move on to another compound (you probably don't have access to the very powerful resources chemists use such as Chemical Abstracts).  If you can find mainstream uses, so much the better. Some examples of decent short pieces - a good stub would be Phthalic anhydride, and a good Start would be Praseodymium(III) chloride or Morpholine. Of course another reason for importance might be biological activity, presence in living systems, or academic interest (it's the strongest acid known, or some such thing).  Thanks, Walkerma 21:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think these things are useful! Where the article is tagged as needing sources, such as with iodate, I think often the source should be a general text such as Greenwood&Earnshaw that includes basic definitions (for inorganics, get that book out the library if you can).  Walkerma 03:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Prefecture_of_Fokida
Hi, I started a page about a place in Greece called the Prefecture of Fokida. Would you mind editing the page or cleaning it up? Here's the link the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefecture_of_Fokida Thanks! Neptunekh 01:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind merging the article that started? I don't do how do that. Neptunekh 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Project deletion
I see you proposed various projects for deletion. I would like to ask you to consider marking the ones that would be viable valid projects (if they had a few members) as inactive, so they can be easily revived if someone is interested. It saves several people work and it's a lot easier to get done. Of course, too narrow projects or ones with a bad aims are still prime candidates for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

MFD archives
Could you please clarify your nomination. I'm not sure if you also want to delete the monthly archives you linked and you haven't explained how debates can be navigated when these daily logs are deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, never mind. You transcluded them. How are load times for those monthly pages? - Mgm|(talk) 10:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well-earned
I'd be happy to nominate you for adminship at any time; assuming your remarkable record has already secured several offers of nomination, know that you can count on my strong support!

As an aside, and I'm sure you heard this before, I had guessed that your username was a humorous reference to Falcon (comics). Did you really only have the bird in mind when you registered the name? :) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear... I hope you didn't spend too long trying to decipher my name! A helpful paragraph from neologism should explain everything:


 * "In psychiatry, the term is used to describe the creation of words which only have meaning to the person who uses them. It is considered normal in children, but a symptom of thought disorder indicative of a psychotic mental illness such as schizophrenia in adults. Usage of neologisms may also be related to aphasia acquired after brain damage resulting from a stroke or head injury."


 * See, I'm just a lunatic! :) (Actually, in fairness to me, I don't attribute any meaning to the word... so, I'm probably not schizophrenic. Yet.)


 * Xolos is by far the best attempt at an explanation: a credit to your intellect and thoroughness! :) When pronounced, my name rhymes with Solos, the less-intellectual plural for the musical work performed by one person.  I get that question occasionally, too, so I thought I'd answer in advance!


 * I stand at your service to heap praises on you whenever the proper hour arrives, in whatever manner you think best. Thank you for your marvelous efforts on the project's behalf.  Best wishes, Xoloz 16:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA
Hey Black Falcon. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. I would especially like to thank you for striking one of your reasons when you saw you were wrong. Some opposers never reply and refuse to change a part they know is wrong.-- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

languages other than English
I must correct something I wrote in a recent discussion.

At Articles for deletion/Ciudad Real Torre Solar you said:

I am shocked by the claim that "non-English language news stories" cannot make something notable! Are news reports written by Spaniards or Latin Americans somehow inferior to reports written by Anglophones? I realise this racist/nationalist sentiment is not what Chriswaterguy intended, but there's really no reason why a source in one language is inherently inferior to a source in another.


 * Certainly not inferior - just a lot harder to verify. However, I was wrong in my understanding of Wikipedia policy: Verifiability states that English language sources (or at least published translations) are preferable, but not that they are required.


 * Thank you that in spite of our difference of opinion, you assumed good faith. --Chriswaterguy talk 14:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree of course that English-language sources are generally preferable ... though I think the reason is not because foreign-language sources are harder to verify per se, but because there are fewer people on en.wikipedia that are able to verify them. In terms of the reliability of sources, which is what is relevant to proving notability, a source in one language ought to be just as good as a source in any other. Anyway, thanks for your message. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

MFD Archiving stuff
Oh Oh! I thought I'd answered already... where did that go? If I recall correctly, I thought that if everything else is already archived and linked from elsewhere, then this transclusion page can go. No need to go through MFD either. Just delete! :-) --Kim Bruning 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist Attacks article
Hi Black Falcon, sorry I couldn't contribute further to the discussion on the article, but I've been kind of swamped with finals and papers the last few days. I'll be back when they're all done and hopefully we can improve the article further then. Cheers! --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to 'Neutral'
Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I responded to your comments at my RfA. I don't expect you to change your mind about me, I just want to fully explain my actions. Have a nice day. David Fuchs( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

appreciat
I am very gratified that so many people have understood the work I've been trying to do, and so so much confidence in me. I'm particularly grateful for your help during the discussion, and I'd be delighted to join with Xoloz. Considering the other one also, this seems like a good time. DGG 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it helpful to have previously constructed careful replies on the required and the usual supplementary questions, & I think it would help to see what you plan to say. DGG
 * Ready. Tell us when you're back & want to start. I hope whatever the problem may be turns out well.DGG 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A matter of interest
Hi. Based on your previous participation in an AFD on the same article, you might find this new AFD of interest. --Gene_poole 10:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Help:Creating policy
You might want to take a look at what is going on at Help:Creating policy. Two editors are trying to eliminate this. Radiant is trying to demote it to a help page. I don't fully support the content, but without some guideline on creating guidelines, it will be a free-for-all. --Kevin Murray 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Assassinations (Sri Lanka)
Hi sorry, what was the problem with the changes I made here? 82.153.72.102 18:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, ok check this...http://www.ipu.org/hr-e/179/Sri49.htm... and the page. Better? 82.153.72.102 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what happened to the citation / source for Fr. Mary Bastian??? Thanks.

lol.. wow its been a long day of editing, im done for the day, please contact me if anything was wrong. thanks

got myself an account :) Thusiyan 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, completely understand where you are coming from with the whole Tamilnet issue. Will be taking that into account in future edits. Yeah with the whole "vandalism" issue, I admit it was a bit of childishness on my part. Just I guess, I got a little frustrated when I added perfectly cited sources, from neutral RS and it got deleted, under the label of "vandalism". But I'll be more careful with the term from now on. Thanks! Thusiyan 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Firefox
Have you tried using Firefox (the web browser)? It has spell checker feature. It checks for spelling as u type, as in MS Word. This feature is very useful when editing wikipedia. Just thought you might want to know.. :-)  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  Peace Talks 06:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiportal cleanup
If you'd rather just make a list of all the pages to be deleted, it would make this process faster. I don't see any need in you marking every page with a tag and a paragraph. Just make a list or show me where the links are and I'll take care of all of them. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Black Falcon, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. I hope that, whatever your personal crisis/emergency is, it resolves itself quickly and well. Please feel free to drop my a note any time if there is anything I can do for you. Pastordavid 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius &#149; talk 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

qys for RfA
It looks fine, but you are absolutely right there is no point doing it until you're back. At that time you might want to take a look at the progress of the controversy over Qian Zhijun, which definitely affect IAR & will still be actively in process when you return, in the form of a arbitration request on Badlydrawnjeff. DGG 21:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an idiot
I don't know what I am doing. I strated to put lsd on the wikipedia and now I am all fdsl up. Woul you hel me I thk it neds to go to a hosptal--207.193.115.183 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiportal redirects
I'll delete them in a second, don't worry. I was just curious if you'd looked at any of the other titles here (special:prefixindex with wikiportal) or came upon the titles in some other way? I figured I'd clean up some of them now that I know of them, but if you've already checked some of them before and found that they're actually used as redirects or something, I wouldn't bother. Thanks. - Bobet 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I'm meaning things like Wikiportal/Astronomy/Picture/2 May 2005, not the redirects that one would actually expect to be useful. - Bobet 20:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I figured they'd be pretty fast to get with popups. And if you do find some other more specific prefixes (like the ones you linked at my talkpage) where it could be really hard to come up with any use for the redirects, just leave a message and I'll get rid of those too. Thanks. - Bobet 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted all the ones you linked, along with the associated talk page redirects. - Bobet 10:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Should be all gone now. Thanks. - Bobet 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Template to portal redirects
I looked at some of those, and I guess most of them could be deleted (the ones that were moved a while ago and have no incoming links). However, some of them don't look that simple, since at least one had been cut and paste moved before and so you'd have to be careful about those too (or you could just ignore them if you didn't feel like it was worth the effort). But if you feel like doing the legwork, I'd be happy to delete the useless ones. - Bobet 11:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gone again. - Bobet 12:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa
Hey, Black Falcon. I just wanted to drop by to thank you for supporting my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I hope to live up to your expectations. Oh, and feel completely free to shout at me if I ever screw things up =) I wish you a beautiful day! Yours sincerely, PeaceNT 12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Many thanks for your support at my RFA. It ended successfully and I am now a glorified janitor. If I can be of any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me through my talk page. Happy editing! &mdash; O cat ecir  Talk  18:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryuchi Matsuda
I drew on the profile of Ryuchi Matsuda on pages 61–62 of Kennedy & Guo. JFD 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice...
Could you give me some advice? You see, approximately two months ago, I put in an RFA, viewable here. It was unsuccessful. Now, I've gained much more experience, and I was thinking or putting in a second RFA. Do you think I should? If you could, please leave your answer on my talk page. Thanks! -Billy227, review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Elysium
Hi mate

re your message to me, I don't think I did do anything wrong in Elysium did I? I just cleaned up a few duplicate references (from memory, Streetcar Named Desire was mentioned three or four times!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.30.111.27 (talk • contribs).


 * Please accept my sincere apologies. I was reverting this change made by another user and accidentally posted the note on your talk page. Again, I apologise for my carelessness. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries! You were very polite about it anyway. Chris —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Regarding edits to ICasualties.org
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Black Falcon! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule alexa\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

New Utopia
You may want to see recent developments at New Utopia and Talk:New Utopia. --Iamunknown 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted your removal of the micronation infobox because the Principality of New Utopia is a micronation. It is stated in the opening sentence of the article and is supported by multiple sources. Your edit summary also makes no sense; all micronations are by definition "not legitimate". Whether they're financial scams, artistic projects, online games or something else is beside the point. They all share the same basic characteristics. --Gene_poole 01:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Twice before I have looked on your talk page and noticed some editors offering to put you up for adminship, and I've also noticed you've declined both times. Consider this round three. I would like to be a co-nominator (one of, probably, several) for an adminship request for you. Are you ready? Mango juice talk 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your trust. Yes, I am ready. I'd already told DGG I would accept his (co-)nomination and he was waiting for me to fully return from my wikibreak. So, umm, let me leave a note on his talk page to see if he can start it now ... Thanks again, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll notify Quarl, too, since he made the offer much earlier.  Good luck, and don't worry, I'm pretty sure this will go no sweat.  Mango juice talk 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Ooh, that reminds me ... I'd promised to notify YechielMan and Xoloz too. I hope that won't be taken to be canvassing ... :) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW, is it correct to refer to you as a "he"? Mango juice talk 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, the request is up, just my nom on there so far, but others will probably come in soonish. It's at Requests for adminship/Black Falcon.  When you're ready for the RFA to officially start, add it to the WP:RFA page.  Mango juice talk 20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're off! DGG 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! And so it begins ... :) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikify Template
Thank you for updating the Wikify Progress Template. Flubeca (t) 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support
I support you for becoming an administrator even though I don't know that much about you I will support you in anyway I can. I am not able to state my reason for supporting you where I should which is that you have "Awesome skills" ND at this whole wikipedia thing. So I am just telling you to keep up the good work and that you would make a great administrator. R d the savior 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I support you also --E-abulous 13:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)E-abulous

Spelling reform article
hi blak. tuk me u wil tu find xis.

re: yor emal respons.

100% ugen. menz yr prite smort.

enewa, il get of xu grips ubowt xu wike editorel polisez & stik tq mi man kunsrnz wix xu kwolite uv xu speling reform artikl.

frum just a kwik revyq uv it, its definitle biast ugenst reform. i dont no if it wuz orijinule ritn xis wa or if its bin modifid tq xis stat, but exr wa, it kud hordle do u betr job uv trning pepl uwa frum xe ideu wixowt being blatantle antireform.

iv bin triing tq get sumwun at xe ALC tq rit u replasmint ortikl, but xa sem tq hav folin intq u stat uv apuxe on xu subjekt. id do it miself, but Bobet wil probuble revrt enexing frum me.

hirz wut maks me bulev xat xu speling reform / inglis speling reform ortiklz hav bin intensunule slantid ugenst xe ideu uv reform: (frum an emal sent tq xe ALC)

>Its my opinion that the Spelling Reform & English Spelling Reform articles are inteneded to discourage interest in the subject. It seems they were written, or at least modified, by somebody who is against the whole idea. Generally, the articles are very tedious. Maybe this is an indirect result of the Wiki style and the fact that the whole subject of spelling is not exactly buxom babes on flying motorcycles, but it certainly will not keep your average grammer school student interested in persuing it after his report is turned in. Wether it is intentionally boring or not, the result is the same. In the English section of the main Reform article, you will see that the 2nd half of it is clearly discouraging and concludes with a sentence & link refering to a parody of reform. If someone were to click on the little link at the top of this section to get to the English Spelling Reform article, they will find only more discouragement: Take a quick look at the WARNING boxes & notes in the English article. You will notice that the 1st 2 sentences have accuracy problem notes thrown in on very trivial issues, starting the reader off with a skeptical atttitude. The Reform Campaigns section has 3 big warning boxes in it. In contrast, the Obstacles and Criticisms sections, even tho the material is unsourced, has only the single [citation needed] which I added. The issues raised in these 2 sections are easily dismissed, yet you will find any refutations posted will be deleted within a few days. The Spelling Reform Campaigns section gives only links to some proposals with practically nothing about them, but finds the space to include a Successes in spelling complication subsection! Following it with a list of 11 'successfully' simplified words is not likely to give anybody an idea that there is any life in the subject. And in case anybody might get their hopes up, the failed Tribune campaign concludes the article and is prefaced with 2 WARNING boxes. To put some final nails in the coffin lid, the External Links section at the bottom includes at least 3 'humorous' webpages that basicly deride the idea of reform. At this point, I am suprised that my addition of a link to the Children of the Code site was not deleted.

Its seems to me that the average person reading these articles will be left with the impression that the subject is nothing more than a dusty old joke.<

i se xat evrexing els on xis tok paj iz sort nots. so im xinking xis iz xu rong plas for xis. if so, just delet it & send me an emal.( neglektid tu sin & dat xat. it wuz rle xis morning)

& latr xu sam da aftr sum slep: DU! on me! wi dont i post xat in xu tok paj uv xu reform artikl? DU! JO 753 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

xanks, blak. il do xat.JO 753 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights in Islam (book)
Hello. Just letting you know, I reverted your Redirection of Human Rights in Islam (book). What you did was actually delete the page. The page was up for discussion for merging, but you didn't merge, you deleted and then redirected the user to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. Please see: Deletion policy. Thank you. Fanra 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I received your reply. I was unaware of the difference between what you did and Deletion.  Although the history of the page remains, it looked like deletion to me.  Reading the page on merge, I see, "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary."  Which is what you did.  It was my fault for not knowing this.  In the future, you might wish to say something in the discussion of the merge that you have gone ahead and merged and didn't put in the information.  I assumed the discussion on the merge was still open.

While you can feel free to do whatever you feel is best for Wikipedia (within the rules, which you were), I thought I would mention to you something I discovered that you might not have seen. Once I read this, I became much less strict on my requirements that articles here be necessary ones. Don't worry about performance Once I read that, I stopped worrying about performance or storage space for Wikipedia. :)

Thank you for your help in teaching me about merges. Fanra 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New Utopia
It was not my intention to offend anyone. It is hard to see people you know personally and have labored hard with to accomplish something so extraordinary as building a new nation from the sea floor up being slandered by people who will not even take the time to make a phone call or check references. You might notice that most of the information is very old that is being sited in the article. You might also notice that the New Utopia project is still going strong and have not been removed or had any complaints filed against them or had any further issue with the government in the last 8 years.

The site has been up all this time and the effort has been ongoing. Lazarus is from a different time. At 75 years old he was simply not aware of the tightening of the rules by the SEC and did not intend to do anyone harm. He simply wanted to build his country on an area that I have seen for myself and it is perfect for building on. No one has a stronger claim than Lazarus on the area of the territorial claim than he does.

Since his first attempt to obtain the financing for this project failed in 2000 after the SEC problem thousands of man hours have been invested in the project. A survey was conducted by the Principality on the area costing over $27,000 and hundreds of volunteer hours of post processing to obtain detailed maps of the region. 

A development plan was prepared by Noel Berge the new Minister of State Development Plan 5MB PDF Mr. Berge formerly worked for the World Bank on projects for the PC computerization of several emerging nations in Africa. He has invested countless hours of work since this initial plan was put together.

Shay Lotan the London Barrister put together a very convincing legal opinion letter which is available upon request but not for internet publication.

Most of this can be discussed in the public until the project is further along.

When you see the work and personal funds that a lot of hard working honest people have put into this project you get very passionate about the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexentity (talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"please assume good faith" as was stated in my remarks on the discussion page good faith can not be clearly established. The entire article is slanted to the negative this bias quite obvious. If it is not deliberately injurious but still slanted and negative how is that objective? I must just be missing something. The edits seem purposely injuriously to the subjects of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexentity (talk • contribs) 05:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have stated that you edited the page to mirror the SEC citation but if you read my further statement on the discussion page you will see that your edit is not in line with the truth of the matter. It is a mistaken conclusion that there is any scam involved nor ant fraudulent enterprise as you have stated in the article.

My reasoning is very clear in the discussion page and I would like you to address it as it is undeniable logic based and the legal opinion. I studies for the bar quite some years ago but I still have a very good understanding of law. When you read the example citation of the SEC ruling against the Banc of America when they violate the same rule stated in the enjoining statement against Lazarus you will see the difference in language.

I might also add that the far more serious statement against BAC when they clearly violated the same security rule did not indicate that were a fraudulent enterprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexentity (talk • contribs) 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia templates
Hi, yes no problem, will include it over the next couple of days, once SB has caught up with its backlog. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53 1 June 2007 (GMT)

My RFA
—Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

RfC
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:GK
Are you sure you want to remove even the subpages with essays that have some usefulcontent on them? Not an issue, just checking. DGG 21:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cathay Camera Club
I see you have proposed the Cathay Camera Club article for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. I would have thought that being the leading English-speaking photographic society in Hong Kong for the past 25 years was notable; you apparently don't. How big or long-established would the club have to be to achieve notability in your eyes? There are other entries on photographic societies that you have not marked, e.g. Toronto Camera Club, Bangladesh Photographic Society, The Camera Club of New York, and RA Photo Club - what makes them more notable? Rodparkes 08:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent arguments...
Hi! I'm still thinking about what you have said. I do think there might still be hope for light-weight reviews, but I'm not sure. Well, first, by using a more modest term than "stable" to the public, like "lacking blatant vandalism" but not so negative, and second, perhaps some simple process would be in order, at least for the very first review, e.g. requiring at least three independent reviews, and so on. In any case, what I really wanted to say (and that's why I'm posting here and not on the talk page) is that I found your argumentation extremely lucid and convincing. I will need to think about this whole thing before I comment again. Really, after many people opposing without fully explaining themselves, your comments were highly refreshing. I hope you will continue to discuss that proposal, and that I will meet you on some article in the future ;) Best wishes, Merzul 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tag WP:UR
I've removed the speedy tag from WP:UR because the redirect was valid, and I didn't understand why the request for deletion was being made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unusual requests was deleted on May 30. I tagged the redirect as a candidate for deletion under CSD R1 on May 31 and it was deleted the same day. An admin restored both the target page and the redirect on June 5, but apparently forgot to remove my speedy tag. See target log redirect log. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Albeit mildly pre-emptive. Have fun! --Steve (Stephen)talk 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I meant what I said at your RFA - I consider you to be the best kind of Wikipedian. I'm relieved to see that the community agrees.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're an Admin!
It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Administrators' how-to guide and Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes and good luck, -- Cecropia 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a great job. Do get in touch if you ever have any questions you think I might be able to help with. WjBscribe 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats. Enjoy the moment for 20 seconds and then get your ass on the job! Pascal.Tesson 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's a big backlog but deletion is oh so quick and easy. Tip for the beginner: when deleting pages that are tagged with db, don't click on the delete tab. You get a much nicer automatic deletion summary by finding the sentence "This will alert administrators (.......) and any revisions of CSD before deletion." in the pink box and hitting the keyword deletion. Pascal.Tesson 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay!! Let's wheel war sometime! ··coe l acan 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC) And I won't deny a hint of cynicism, so I'll just hope that it's both.
 * Oh, if you're not familiar with the term, see wheel war. I will make the first move, by speedy deleting Ramtha as an insalvageable BLP violation. You should then give me a three hour cool down block with a block summary of "Happy Birthday, Susan!" ··coe l acan 07:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pfft. If I knew you were going to be spamming thank messages for a 100% RfA, I might have abstained! –Pomte 06:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's not so bad. Some people like the notes. I was too lazy to spam for mine, but I considered it. In the end I opted for the path of least resistance. ··coe l acan 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Woo, congrats! You'll do a great job, methinks  G1  gg  y  !  Review me! 07:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrads mate, do us proud. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sincerest best wishes in this role. Pedro | Chat  07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratuations, you'll make a fine admin - and yes, licking hot women is part of the job, you better get used to it fast!  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, congratulations! As Ryan says, licking hot women is indeed part of the job, but there are fun bits too, you'll see. Take care mate :) Riana ⁂  10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. Peacent 13:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. I meant it when I said that I've always enjoyed your contributions here. Don't leave that behind with your new responsibilities. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA
You don't need to thank me; you deserve the tools and you need them to be more efficient on Wikipedia. You had overwhelming support, and I wish you good luck! Sr13 07:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RfA
BF, congratulations on your well supported RfA. I was pretty tied up the last week and didn't notice your nomination, or you would have had my support, not that you needed it. Good luck! --Kevin Murray 14:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Congratulations on your successful nomination. I have no doubts that your sysopping will be a boon to the project :)

As for my less than successful run, thank you for your words of support. It is heartening to know that people see and respect one's contributions. While it's disappointing that people are willing to oppose someone based only on a userbox while having no substantial gripes with their contributions, I respect that everyone is entitled to an opinion and a voice. I may give it another shot in a while, and hopefully they'd be more keen to judge based on my work between now and then. Again, thanks for the comment and good luck with the admin duties!  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Conga Rats on your successful RFA! --Ozgod 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mr RfA...
Congratulations, and thanks for you kind words. Good luck with your new responsibilities. Cheers! hmwith  [?] 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome for my support! :) Acalamari 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian (T, C, E) 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)