User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 3

Congrats Man
Congrats on your RfA and your welcome, when I reviewed your edits I was very impressed. Æon Insanity Now!  04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for your AfD comment about John Hochman, acknowledging the work I put into expanding the article with reputable sourced citations. That was very nice of you and unexpected, thanks. Yours, Smee 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

User:Valusa
Hi Black Falcon! This is the user Valusa (check out my user page). I have a question. What is the request for adminship? From:Valusa--Valusa 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(Image:Tangeline.jpg)
You can delete it, the article it was used for got deleted-- Migospia † ♥ 07:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Someone found a use-- Migospia † ♥ 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tangeline mistake
Tangeline has been redirected to Evangeline Williamson. that is so insulting and wrong, no one I saw nor did I say to redirect there, I thought we all agreed to delete, redirect and merge into One Life to Live, then delete the other 26+ soap couple, why close the discussion and then change the agreement all on your on?-- Migospia † ♥ 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How the hell do I do that?-- Migospia † ♥ 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC) nvm and whenever the others put up for deletion let me know, Cheers-- Migospia † ♥ 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Black Falcon! The request for adminship sounds cool! Im going to have to wait some time for it. But I hope to get nominated someday! From:--Valusa 07:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome
I have not seen this much unanimous endorsement in the last one year. That speaks volumes about you as a person. Keep up the good work.Taprobanus 14:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Septarian nodule
Hi! I created an about Septarian nodules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septarian_nodule Would you mind looking at it and editing it? thanks! Neptunekh 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Recursion
This Stokke deletion loop is amusing and I keep trying to point things out however I'm afraid of doing anything really WP:BOLD because I hope one day to become an admin and I have a feeling being bold on an article that has, ironically, become the wikipedia controversy of the month over whether being the newspapers controversy of the month is notable would make me unelectable. If Tony doesn't change his stance what shall happen? –– Lid(Talk) 18:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm rather confident he will undo his closure ... in my experience, Tony is reasonable; he just has an intense dislike for process when it comes to biographies of living persons. If he adamantly refuses to undo his closure, there are three options: (1) start a new DRV discussion, which someone else may immediately close as "disruptive"; (2) start a request for comment against him, which I think is the least desirable outcome; (3) simply revert him. If he flat-out refuses to undo his closure ... I'm leaning toward the first or the third (in general I don't like admins reverting each other, but I think this was sufficiently out-of-process to justify that). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So Tony is an admin? I wasn't sure and his logs weren't helpful (hasn't done anything admin related since October) and also thought he had them removed for some reason. I posted as such on his talk page. –– Lid(Talk) 18:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What the ... you're right! He resigned adminship in October 2006 (see Former administrators). Still, I'd like to wait a little longer to see if he'll undo the closure on his own. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your admin promotion, if I had seen your RFA i whould had supported it. Anyway, hope to see ya around! Flubeca (t) 14:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Huge waste of time
Well, that was a huge waste of everyones time.


 * 1) By closing Hungarophobia, or whatever as "Delete", and Serbophobia as "No delete", you guarantee that someone else will create Hungarophobia again.
 * 2) Yes, the Serbophobia article improved, I improved it. But now it is entirely trivial, and I expect by one week it will be filled with WP:OR again.
 * 3) This exact same AfD troupe will probably come up again in 2 months time.

I'm not blaming you, I just wish someone with more experience of these issues had closed the AfD. - Francis Tyers · 06:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blah, sorry about that, I'm just a bit frustrated is all. Disregard me :/ - Francis Tyers · 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. No problem, I can understand and appreciate that you posted a follow-up to your initial comment. I realise that by closing them differently, I left open the possibility of a deletion review charging that I did not evaluate them equally ... but, that's the point: I evaluated each discussion separately and closed it on that basis. As I noted in the Serbophobia AfD, there is no consensus that all "anti-X sentiment" articles are inherently invalid, so the AfD outcome for one article cannot directly extend over others. The fact that they were nominated separately, have different strengths and weaknesses, and received separated deletion debates also precludes any attempt to treat them all the same.


 * As regards your three points:
 * If someone recreates "anti-Hungarian sentiment", it can always be renominated for deletion if the article is again an original synthesis of various facts/incidents.
 * The Serbophobia article may be refilled with original research, but proneness to OR, POV, or vandalism are generally considered weak reasons to delete an article unless there is consensus that a valid article can't be written with what is there.
 * I don't see a problem with renominating the articles in the future, though I'd advise to do either a bulk nomination – if the nomination rationale is the same for all articles and you want all articles to be considered together – or to tailor each nomination to its respective article.


 * Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination)
Hello Black Falcon, keeping in line with the policy for WP:DRV, I would very much like if you could, take a second look at the Article I nominated for AfD, Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination). As this is my second nomination for this article, and having acted on the advice of the previous closing administrator,, the final course of action open to me would appear to be WP:DRV. If you would, could you possibly outline the rational used in arriving at your determination. As outlined in the previous discussion, I felt I made every effort this time to offer a “good strong refutation”, of the arguments, and although the discussion did not generate the level I interest I had hoped for, (having been listed on both the WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland and the WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature ) I did not feel that this would have a negative affect, in fact quite the opposite. I look forward to hearing from you, thanking you in advance, Kind Regards, --Domer48 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'd be happy to provide my reasoning.


 * The basis of your nomination was that the book, in your view, was not notable. User:A1octopus agreed with you but used a standard of notability that, though certainly valid, is significantly stricter than the current wording at WP:BK: "internationally famous, on several best-seller lists, and/or a spark of major controversy in notable publications". User:Vintagekits also agreed, stating that "[t]he book itself is not notable". Though Vintagekits did not provide additional explanation, I presume s(he) mean that the book does not meet any of the criteria specified at WP:BK.


 * User:Paxse responded by (1) providing links to multiple reviews and (2) stating that the "book also meets the minimum threshold standards for WP:BK as it has an ISBN number and is cataloged by the National Library of Ireland". The latter is, of course, the bare minimum that that a book must satisfy to even be considered for inclusion, so I did not give it much weight. However, the presence of reviews does allow a case to be made that the book meets Criterion 1 of WP:BK, as was argued by User:Paxse and User:Kernel Saunters.


 * You challenged the ability of the reviews to establish notability on the basis that they were not reliable/were from commercial sites or provided only trivial coverage of the book. Regarding the former: WP:BK does not reject the use of sources from commercial sites as long as they are reliable and independent of the authors/publishers. What the notability guideline states, specifically, is that being listed "at online bookstores such as BarnesAndNoble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability". Regarding the latter: the triviality of coverage is something that can be debated and I feel that in this instance there was sufficient disagreement about it to prevent the reaching of a consensus to delete the article. As you noted, one of the defining features of Criterion 1 of WP:BK is that there must be "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary". However, you were unable to convince Paxse and Kernel Saunters that such information was not present. Indeed, the existence of the "Critical response" section suggests that the article already has grown beyond "a simple plot summary".


 * I will echo Herostratus' comment that the role of the closer is not so much to evaluate the article itself, but to determine whether there exists a policy-informed consensus to delete the article. That does not seem to me to be the case here. I would be happy to provide any further clarifications. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your considered reply. If I may make some points in relation to your rational, I would be much obliged. On your point about A1octopus, I would agree that it is a much stricter criteria, but I would also consider it to be of a much more encyclopaedic standard. In relation to Vintagekits contribution your right, during the first AfD they were much more detailed as seen here . On the more substantive issue, I at not time questioned the reliability of sources as you suggest, but rather questioned there applicability under the criteria outlined and the "nonsubstantive detail treatment". I addressed each one of the sources in turn, and at no time were the issues I raised addressed. In particular, as outlined in the criteria, these sources did not satisfy it at all. The “subject”  was reviewed in a “trivial”,  way and this point was quite frankly ignored. Did anyone read the reviews? There was no “analysis of the manner of treatment”, in the reviews and in the criteria, this was considered “crucial”. I gave my analysis, and being the only one who read the book, I was in a position to compare it with other books of its genre. This book as outlined, is not notable, and there was not “sufficient disagreement”, as you suggest, since there was no discussion! Both parties at no time engaged in this part of the discussion. As to the books genre, it was intimated through the use of one particular source that the book could be considered a text book, and this again would be covered by the following criteria, Thank you for you time, and would welcome any observations you may have, Kind Regards  --Domer48 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Allow me to reply to each of your points in turn. A1octopus' standard may or may not be "much more encyclopaedic", but the role of the closer is to evaluate arguments in context of existing consensus-supported policies and guidelines. His comment revealed that the book did not meet his standard of notability, but said little about whether he thought the book failed the existing notability guideline for books. As regards Vintagekits' comment, this link seems to substantiate my initial assumption that "s(he) mean[t] that the book does not meet any of the criteria specified at WP:BK". So, her/his reasoning in the first AfD was essentially included in your argument in the second. In case you are wondering, I did not discount the comment for its brevity, but instead considered it a support of your nomination.
 * My comment that you questioned the reliability of the sources was based in my understanding of your statement that the New Statesman review was from a "commerical web site". However, as you note, the main direction of your argument was that the reviews provided only trivial coverage of the book. Despite whether you or I agree with Paxse and Kernel Saunters, I believe that these diffs illustrate that they expressed their disagreement with your evaluation of the coverage in the reviews as "trivial". Though I view Kernel Saunters' statement that "The reviews ... are in-depth and provide a wealth of information" to be an exaggeration, it seems equally unfair to state that the reviews provide only "nonsubstantive detail treatment", considering that the phrase refers to mere mentions of a book's title, author(s), publication date/place, price, and the like.
 * If my arguments convince you that my close was proper but you still think the article ought to be deleted, I would recommend that you consider renominating it after some time, assuming the article does not improve. I doubt that an immediate renomination would be useful in reaching a consensus; indeed, it may be frowned upon. On the other hand, if you do not think that the close was proper and believe that there was a consensus to delete the article, you may bring up the matter at deletion review.
 * If you have additional comments or questions regarding my closing rationale, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello again Black Falcon, thank you for again for your time and indulgence in relation to my concerns. Just two points of clarification on your understanding of my position, 1) In relation to my use of the term “commercial web site”, I am referring to Vendors, which are sites which sell and advertise books. 2) On the use of the term “nonsubstantive detail treatment"
 * Under the conditions outlined in the “Subject” criteria, you will of course notice that “other nonsubstantive detail treatment", means in addition to “mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings.” Where any of the sources checked against the criteria I have outlined, or are decisions based only on the content on the AfD page.
 * I noticed also that the criteria on Notability (books) has changed . Am I to understand that there is no difference between notable and reliable, as it may affect my reasoning. Thanks again, Kind Regards--Domer48 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did briefly check the reviews prior to closing the AfD, but did so not to assess the reviews myself, but rather to assess the "keep" arguments based on them. I thought that there was enough information in the reviews to allow one to make the case that the book meets Criterion 1 of WP:BK (i.e., that their treatment of the subject is not wholly nonsubstantive) and thus did not discount the arguments for keeping the article, though I did discount the idea that the reviews "are in-depth and provide a wealth of information". So, in short, I looked at the reviews only to evaluate the arguments presented at the AfD and tried not to let my personal negative evaluation of the reviews get in the way.
 * My modification of WP:BK was intended to clarify the difference between notability and reliability. The concept of reliability relates to the credibility of information published in a given source (see Reliable sources). The concept of notability relates to whether a topic is "worthy of note" and merits an article in Wikipedia (see Notability). Content on Wikipedia should be supported by reliable sources, but the publishers of the sources themselves need not meet the notability guidelines. For instance, publications in almost all peer-reviewed academic journals are reliable; however, not all peer-reviewed academic journals are notable. I hope that clarifies the meaning of my edit. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Hungarian sentiment
It is very interesting, only the anti-hungarian sentiment article has been deleted, although most of the voters (8 of them), who said to delete the article (14 delete votes) agreed to the deletion only, if the other articles go too.Baxter9 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As AfD debates are discussions rather than votes, the exact tally was not what determined my closure. In addition, three of the six AfDs in the series have not yet been closed and one or more of them may still be deleted. Finally, specifying "delete all" or "delete, along with others" is not the same as stating "delete, but only if the others are deleted". If you would like, I can provide a detailed explanation of my closing rationale. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant by voting for "delete all": "delete, but only if the others are deleted". --KIDB 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * KIDB, since I cannot guess intent, I closed based on what was written. Unless somehow amended or supplemented, a "delete all" recommendation does not in itself suggest support for conditional action. If you think that the other "delete all" comments were also meant to be conditional and are unsatisfied with the result, you may want to consider taking this to deletion review to gather broader community input. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. That article was not so bad, it had many references. Why are the other anti-x articles are better?? They can stay??Baxter9 07:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Baxter9, as the closer, my role was only to evaluate the arguments presented in the AfD and to ascertain whether there was consensus for a particular action. My closure does not directly reflect on the quality of the articles except as it reflects the evaluations of participants in the deletion discussion. Finally, having references does not preclude an article from constituting an original synthesis. For instance, it is a fact that Eva Longoria and Veselin Topalov were born on the same day, but to state that their births are in any way connected (except that they happened to be on the same day) constitutes original "research". If you think an article can be written that addresses the concerns raised in the AfD (primarily WP:OR and WP:NPOV), you may certainly recreate the article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Help
I need someone to protect the Kazi Nazrul Islam page because of the recent vadalism by many IP address to that page. So if you could do that would be really nice and it would help stop further vandalism. R d the savior 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA
Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick technical question, seeing as you are online...
Hi. First time I have ever done this, but I just blanked two user pages, on inappropriate content grounds - although I doubt that many would disagree with that ;O).

The question is: should I take this to WP:ANI to get the page histories removed?  FlowerpotmaN (t &middot; c) 00:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (reply) Cheers. Just one of those situations I hadn't dealt with before.  FlowerpotmaN (t &middot; c) 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (and..)Oh, belated congratulations as well..  FlowerpotmaN (t &middot; c) 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How should I respond to User:SqlPac?
I nominated User:SqlPac's userboxes for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SqlPac. After a discussion, two of them were deleted and I withdrew the nomination on the other five. Now the user is threatening to nominate other userboxes that he considers inflammatory because he thinks I set a bad precedent. (Please see my talk page.) I want to ignore him, but I'm not sure if that's the best idea. What do you recommend? Yechiel Man 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Yechiel. I would recommend disengaging – either via a lack of response or a short, neutral response – as the best course of action at this point. After reading his message and looking at his userpage, I doubt that he will actually nominate any of the "about 50 userboxes" he claims to have found. Even if he does, it shouldn't be much of a problem. If they are valid nominations, the userboxes will be deleted. If they are not, he can be cautioned not to use deletion processes to make a point. A comment about his incivility to you might be in order, but I also think it would only unnecessarily prolong the situation. I hope this helps. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Work
Hey! Your the man. You really are making Wikipedia a better place, keep up the good work. And thats a really cool name! Holla Back yo! Signed: K to the fizzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishan prasad (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Zakspeed 861
Hi Black Falcon. You recently prodded the article Zakspeed 861. I have removed the prod tag for the moment. The article has been expanded considerably and has been brought to the attention of the WikiProject Formula One. The same focus has led to the improvement of Zakspeed 841, where the prod tag was already removed (by someone else). If you disagree with my removing the tag, you may obviously nominate the article for AFD. A ecis Brievenbus 22:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

my RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Zawraa template
Hi their. Well the template originally had the logo of the team next to the name as well, and it was used in the Iraqi football pages, but someone found some rule and declared it to be wrong of using the logo and the template. I dont know what to do now. Chaldean 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea go ahead, their is nothing I can do. Chaldean 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, are you a moderator? Chaldean 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok great, because I have been having a problem with the page Chaldean for quite some time now. Probably over a year worth of reverting randum IP address that is changing sourced statement. Can you please temperarly block non-registered users from editing the page? (having the same problem with Alqosh as well). Thanks. Chaldean 00:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Closure of Articles for deletion/Oxford University Chess Club
Hi, I'd just like to thank you for your detailed closure of this AFD. I hope that the editors interested in keeping this article will take them to heart and work to improve the page with them in mind. Maybe they won't give the words much credence coming from me, but perhaps you'll be seen as a neutral party. Thanks again! FrozenPurpleCube 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Userfying lists
Hi. You noted at Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather that you would like the lists userfied if the closing decision was to delete them. I have closed the discussion, deleting 15 lists and retaining 11 lists as "no consensus, relist at discretion". Which of the thus far deleted lists would you like me to userfy? I'd be happy to userfy all 15, but am concerned that the fix-up of so many lists simultaneously could prove overwhelming. However, if you want them, just let me know at my talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Black Falcon, thanks for giving a very thoughtful response and closure to the debate. I'm disappointed by the still large deletion, but I appreciate that you spent literally hours struggling with the issues.  Although I did make a point with the "weather songs" example, that probably isn't my highest priority.  On a whim I've written a new intro for the List of songs about divorce article based on a journal article dealing with the subject.  If you recreate that page I'll add the into and start to cleanup/improve the sourcing of that list first.


 * I would be interested in having the remaining deleted pages userfied. I don't have a time-line for fixing them though, and will likely pick some battles and let go of others in the end.  There are a few that I edited during the debate though I didn't mention them there.  Deleted ones I recall are motorcycles, astrology, and criminals.  I also see significant potential for disease, children, childhood, death, prostitution, and automobiles. (--That makes for an odd sentance read out of context.)


 * I'm not familiar with any hard rules on userfied articles (how long you may harbor them etc.), but I'll start to look at what ever you give me (assuming the text and edit histories can in fact be unearthed a good while later). Thanks again. -MrFizyx 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Stunt
Can you keep an eye on Articles for deletion/James Stunt? There is an anonymous IP opposing the Afd, which in itself is fine. However, the edit where he claimed to be a rather well-known member of the British journalistic profession, I think, might have gone a tad too far. (I signed it for him, and it was quickly reverted :O))  FlowerpotmaN (t &middot; c) 02:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:WPNN, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WP:WPNN. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Diez2 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

List of songs about weather
What, you're surprised there's a question? I am very cognizant of the work that you did in closing this AFD however for this one list I think the no consensus closure warrants another look. This isn't a list of songs about weather. It's merely a list of songs that mention a weather phenomenon in the title. Given that "List of songs whose title..." lists have been uniformly deleted at AFD over the last couple of weeks, I hope you'll take anoher look at whether it's reasonable to delete this one as well. Otto4711 03:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. :) I was well aware that my closure might leave both sides unsatisfied, so I'm only pleasantly suprised that no one has seriously objected to it yet. The List of songs about weather embodies, I think, the very definition of a "list ... of loosely associated topics", so I am inclined toward its removal (at least as it currently stands). However, I also do not want to deviate from the principle of not immediately deleting those lists which either survived a previous AfD or which at least one editor recommended keeping. So please give me some time to consider it.
 * I will be userfying the deleted lists to subpages of User:MrFizyx per his request, who has stated that he will work on the lists, improving those he can and dropping (i.e., deleting) those he can't. Since it was he who specifically objected to the deletion of the weather-related songs list, I've asked whether he'd agree to have that one userfied as well. I think it would avoid an unnecessary AfD. I expect that he will agree and will inform you of his response and my subsequent action. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

whether there'll be weather

 * By the way, another editor has asked that List of songs about weather be included as one of the deleted/userfied pages. Would you agree to have it userfied as well? Since you were the only to (sort of) argue that it ought to be kept, I would feel comfortable modifying my closure if you don't object to its userfication. Please let me know. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Odd request, no one else addressed this article specifically in the debate. I do plan to improve that article.  In the mainspace, others are more likely to help.  I'll try to take critism such as Otto's above into consideration. Perhaps he can be more patient?


 * If I understand correctly, any significantly changed article can be moved back to the mainspace without a DRV since it is not the same as recreating deleted material... I'll leave it to you to make the call.  I won't offer any objections or blessings.  I think another AfD would only prove the nominator's impatience.  As noted in the AfD, you may userfy any of these lists to User:MrFizyx/songs/List of songs about blah.  Thanks, -MrFizyx 05:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to commend you on being brave enough to take on this for the closure, and intelligent/creative enough to find a relatively pleasing solution. Thanks! Dimitrii 00:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the very kind words and vote of confidence. However, it will really be a relief to drop the nice guy act and be free to aggressively pursue my real agenda.

Seriously though, if you have any insights or advice that you've picked up in the process of learning the admin ropes, I would welcome them. No pressure though.-- Kubigula (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * After a few sessions at CSD, I understand why they call it a mop. I appreciate your comments though - it's definitely worth remembering to keep finding things that engage you or you burn out.-- Kubigula (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

List of films by gory death scene AfD
This debate has been underwhelmed by the response of previously active editors. Unfortunately, I've been far too busy myself to bring my full attention to bear, and I'd like to ask you to pop in and bring up arguments that have gone underrepresented. This would be much more eloquent but I've stayed up to the wee hours of the night about this again. Thanks. --Kizor 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible unintended contradiction
In the edit you made here, you had the summary "the *deleting* admin should seek consensus; regardless of what one thinks about BLP deletions, this does *not* apply to all processes". However, the version you reverted to also says that this rule applies to all deletion processes -- just wondering what you really wanted to say? Silas Snider (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll get no argument on your stance from me (I wrote what I did just to clarify what was already there, not because I agree with it), however I think it would be advisable to wait and see what the final decision of the ArbCom is, instead of doing the whole unproductive back-and-forth thing on WP:BLP. Also, someone on the mailing list suggested that a notice should be put in MediaWiki:Watchdetails to the effect that WP:BLP is being drastically reinterpreted. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonfairfax (talk • contribs).

Template talk:Prod-nn
It is annoying when people can't give an actual reason for why they consider something non-notable enough to have it deleted, and this template encourages that kind of behaviour. I was just about to to nominate it for deletion when I saw that it had actually very recently survived a nomination by you. (I had actually thought about this for a few weeks but never noticed the nomination...)

I think the "informative edit summary" that is already on the WP:PROD page needs to be made compulsory (as in "if you do this more than twice, you are blocked for disruption and banned for eternity from prodding stuff") and complemented by a demand for a "informative reason", one that actually gives a short summary of a. what an article is about (needed for the summary list at WP:PRODSUM), and b. why it should be deleted. People who can't give that much of an explanation have no business prodding articles in the first place. Pharamond 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the change is a good one, and I can't see any reason why anybody should object. Pharamond 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians who are pilots
I've reverted the change you made to the Wikipdian pilots category. The vast majority of the members of the cat, including myself, are private pilots but not pilots by profession. This has been discussed before, take a gander at the history. Regads, C HAIRBOY (☎) 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion policy
I think maybe there's a point that's being missed here. There are many BLP deletions that should not be recreated even if the first article was poor. This isn't a mandate not to create articles, its just a sanity check first to make sure there isn't something more behind the deletion than a contributor realizes. Shell babelfish 23:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea - I don't think these pages are being salted routinely now since that was historically used for pages recreated multiple times. Might be a good way to fix the issue, but I still don't think it hurts us to be more careful about BLP recreation Shell babelfish 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

delsort list Americas
Hi, the delsort project is trying to organise and rationalise the lists. You have recently done some work on the Americas page, so before I propose on List control that we close this one down, do you have any strong feelings one way or the other regarding its usefulness? John Vandenberg 06:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI
I posted notice in ANI and no admin wants to touch it because it deals with an admin’s actions in the periphery but in reality it deals with the outcome of the action of the admin not the admin actions. It has to do with the continual harassment of me that has to stop. Any help will be appreciated. Taprobanus 12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There really isn't much that an admin can do now with the March diff. As far as a warning goes, Iwazaki was warned by Mel Etitis after making the post. If you feel that there is indeed "continual harassment" of you by Iwazaki, I can suggest one of three courses of action:
 * Attempt to avoid conflict and report any future incidents to ANI or an administrator's (including mine) talk page;
 * Request comment from other parties via Wikiquette alerts; or
 * Start a Request for comment on him.
 * I'm not overly familiar with the history of interaction between Iwazaki and yourself, so I'm only presenting general advice and can't suggest any particular course of action. I may be able to say something more concrete if you provide specific and recent diffs. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon vandalism user
Time to block him :) EliasAlucard|Talk 18:50 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Template: Trivia
I finally replied to your week old comment over at Template talk:Trivia - search page for "schoolhouse rock".

Thanks, btw, for being a calming voice on that page - though I disagree with your fundamental point about trivia sections, I think we agree on the severity of the problem. It is not much of one. For me, the irritant now is that there are many thousands of these tags that have been spammed unnecessarily, and there's no "undo" button. Tempshill 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Degeneration
I think Wiki is in big trouble. I have the impression that you are one of the higher up editors here. If this is so, I suggest you call a meeting to review the basic principles of this enterprise.

As an outsider, my impression of Wikipedia WAS close to what can be found in the Whats So Great About Wikipedia article (or essay, if you want to be pedantic). Maybe it was accurate some years ago, but now, to me its more like a collection of minimum effort UNSIGNED grammer school book reports. This is a direct result of the editorial policies that make the ideals presented in that essay a complete lie.JO 753 04:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Belated delivery of your cake :-)
See what Snowolfd4 did to your cake. Damn idiot took a slice while I went to take your Falooda. Anyway I brought a slice of Flourless Chocolate Cake to celebrate your Adminship, hip hip hurray -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie |undefined 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominalist Wikipedians
Oh well on the deletion. I created the category long ago, but being not-too-active nowadays, didn't see the UCD discussion. Only a couple editors ever added it, in any case.

I'm not quite there, however, with the idea that the category was strictly a Myspace-style thing. Obscurantism, perhaps: but philosophical nominalism actually does have something to do with an editing philosophy, in terms of what things should be meaningfully listed and categorized, or the approach to general terms as article titles. On the other hand, making the category might indeed have been a sly sort of deliberate pragmatic self-contradiction. LotLE × talk 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sabbatarian Wikipedians
Hi there. I see that you were the closing admin for the deletion of this user category. The discussion was rather limited to achieve consensus with only two editors participating. My argument, if I had known of the deletion debate, would have been that it has nothing to do with social networking, those of us who keep Shabbat simply do not edit during that day of the week— specifically in terms of collaboration, we won't reply to queries asked to us during that time. As not replying to someone for a day or so can get some people kind of worked up, it's nice if there's a reason you can point to. I'm not sure if this belongs in a deletion review or what, but I thought I'd address you first. By the way, Shabbat starts tonight, so I may not be able to reply to what you write right away. Cheers! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Information about when one will not edit is probably better expressed as a userbox or a note on one's userpage than a category. My thinking is that no one will look through categories specifically to find out when editors are not editing. If you think the category is useful despite that, and given that only three editors (including the nom) commented, I will relist the discussion at WP:UCFD so that you may participate and bring up any relevant points. I think that option is simpler and less bureaucratic than a deletion review. Let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes; three editors. I forgot the nominator. No, upon some further thought I think I agree with you that the what I described above is better served by a notice such as I have on my own user talk page. There isn't really a need for someone to look up all the other people who happen to keep similar views. Thank you for your cheerfulness and willingness to re-list, but I don't think that will be necessary. Happy editing!&mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Belated congrats
Hi. I don't think I've congratulated you on your successful RfA. Sorry. I'm sure you're using the mop well. Xiner (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know what you mean. You'll find your balance. Cheers. Xiner (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my edits on Sarath
I guess in retrospect, the edits could have been better worded and balacned. Thanks for pointing this out. I am pretty new to all this. Cheers, Sinhala freedom 03:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

BushProtest.jpg
I uploaded below image which I found in flickr, I know flickr images can be uploaded to wikipedia provided they are attributed, but I am not sure which licensing tag is appropriate. Could you kindly check and fix this Në&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;er  Peace Talks 17:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:BushProtest.jpg


 * I don't think that all Flickr images can be uploaded to Wikipedia. Although many (maybe even most) images on Flickr are posted under a Creative Commons license, allowing them to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, this particular one seems to be copyrighted (look under the "Additional information" section on the right side of the screen here). Compare that with, for instance, this photo licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License and this one licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. (Note: both of those images are already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.)


 * So, I don't think the Bush protest images qualifies as "fair use" per Wikipedia's non-free content requirements unless the event depicted in the image is somehow historically significant or is specifically discussed in the article's text (both of which seem unlikely). Image copyright is not my strongest suit, but I'm fairly confident about this one. You may want to double-check at Media copyright questions. I hope that helps. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking it out.. the same image can be found here under creative commons.  Në&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;er  Peace Talks 10:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The appropriate license for that one would be Cc-by-2.0 and it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although ... the image states "I did not capture this one!!!", so the copyright may actually belong to someone else. Hmm ... that's something you'd be better off asking at Media copyright questions. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 15:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Student
Thanks for dealing with it. I ran into that template reverting some silly page creations by a friend of the template's creator (I assume). Since I don't have much template experience I figured I'd nominate it for TfD and see where it went. I'll tag similar ones for speedy deletion in the future. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bush's pretzel

 * Link to the discussion: Articles for deletion/2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (2nd nomination)

I am considering requesting a DRV on the AfD that you closed. By my count, there were 18 deletes, and 15 keeps, but at least 8 of the keeps were the direct result of last-minute canvassing by the author of the article. If we take the canvassing into account, it seems that there was a clear consensus (18-7) to delete. I don't wish to disparage you as the closer, but I think you made a mistake here. Do you have any thoughts you wish to add before I decide how to proceed? - Crockspot 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since AfD is not a vote and as there was not overwhelming support for one outcome or another, I mostly considered the arguments presented and gave little weight to the distribution of deletes and keeps. (To be honest, I only noticed that they were roughly equal in number and did not specifically count them prior to my close.) Even if I had considered numbers, the two sides were roughly equal, once comments like "for god's sake" (delete) and "one thing he almost got right" (keep) are discounted.


 * In terms of the strength of arguments, I do not think a consensus emerged. The primary argument for deletion (and I'm lumping together different variants of it) was that the event is insignificant outside the life of George W. Bush and, while newsworthy, is not encyclopedic. Those arguing to keep the article disputed this point and referred to the fact that the incident continues to receive coverage 5 years later, thus making it more than a mere one-time news story.


 * There is no easy way to reconcile these conflicting positions (and I realise that I'm merging several specific arguments into two general ones) or to determine which is better while trying, at the same time, not to be influenced by one's personal opinions. Both positions are grounded in policy, albeit different interpretations of it.


 * I considered the canvassing but ultimately did not let it affect my decision (note that of the 8 people canvassed, 3 did not participate). If it had been obvious that the canvassed editors came only to vote by posting comments like "per nom", "it's interesting", and the like, I would have discounted them. Most of the comments in this case were not like that and indeed attempted to justify the article's retention via current policies and guidelines (primarily Notability and WP:NOT).


 * So, in short, I think my closure was appropriate given the circumstances. You may certainly seek a formal review, but you may also want to consider the option of attempting to create consensus for a merge to an appropriate target. I also ask that you consider the following quote from Consensus
 * "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the previous consensus - not simply on the fact that today more people showed up supporting position A than position B."
 * Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure how I will go with it, need to think on it a bit, but I'll let you know if I take it to DRV. - Crockspot 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
Bula Black Falcon

thanks for the heads up I got a bit over zealous without knowing the appropriate place to place the wiki fiji project tags won't make the same mistake twice. have a good day.

Vinaka Maikeli MB 02:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Done
put the Tag on the template, man I keep putting my foot in my mouth...anyway thanks again for the heads up, what was trying to do was create the side box on the user page somehow I made the template and then I tried to delete it and it stayed so then I played around with the format but I ended up just copying the info to my user page once I had sorted out my user page I did not know how to remove the template, anyway problem solved have a good day.

Vinaka MB MB 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson_2
I would ask that you withdraw this Request for the time being. Jeffrey has expressed a willingness to make more meaningful replies and a look at this talkpage shows a definite change in his altitude. Nick 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you perhaps point me to where/how he has done that? I would be happy to withdraw the RfC (after all, I secretly admired his deletion of the BJADON subpages), but his recent contributions do not seem to suggest that he has any intention of doing things differently. See, e.g., . Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Jeffrey using his talk page now, rather than deleting comments straight away. Isn't he now using his talk page as intended ? Nick 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm ... well, sort of, though that doesn't address all of the points raised in the RfC. I would like to drop the case if he agrees to one of three outcomes listed in the "Desired outcomes" section of the RfC. Listed in decreasing order of preference:
 * Agree to adhere to the civility and speedy deletion policies and actually do so. Continue as an admin.
 * Take a voluntary break from administrative actions. Continue as an editor.
 * Voluntarily resign his adminship. Continue as an editor.
 * I also honestly do not know if my withdrawal would make any difference as 2 others have already certified the request. I have little involvement with RfC (not in small part due to my dislike of how bureaucratic it is), so your comments would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is Jeffrey isn't editing, he's just occasionally deleting a few images that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I've little experience of RfC either is I tend to think it's just a source of drama and tension for these sorts of matters, so I've no idea if it can be withdrawn now. Nick 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would actually say that he's relatively active with image deletions (about 400 since June 23), but that's a relatively unimportant point in the grand scheme of things. The thing is ... I've known for some time that Jeffrey is a little rough around the edges (I even secretly cheered him on when he deleted BJAODN), but the shift in behaviour around June 23 is quite dramatic, I think.
 * So, at the moment, I'm not sure how to proceed. Should I withdraw? Can I withdraw? Even if I withdraw, will someone simply refile the RfC? Part of me wants to place a note at the RfC page stating that I'd like to withdraw the case as soon as Jeffrey agrees to one of the "desired outcomes" or indicates that he will reconsider his behaviour, but I'm worried it may come off as a patronising ultimatum.
 * So, again, I'm not sure what to do at this point, though in the absence of any indication by Jeffrey that he will honestly consider the concerns raised on his talk page and at ANI, I'm leaning toward requesting broader community input on the matter at the RfC. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia non-brave administrator
There is something malformed about your starting discussion for Category:Wikipedia non-brave administrator on UCfD. I do not understand it. My comment there is actually wrong. Clicking on the edit brings up the template you used and that is protected. --Bduke 02:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. The problem was that I forgot to "subst" the template; I have since substed it and you should be able to edit the section. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Easily done. Thanks. --Bduke 02:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow up to UCFD comment

 * Regarding my comment at WP:UCFD (permalink):

I'd like to point out, partly as a warning against using it, a flawed argument in your nomination. "...having an interest in making movies is not the same as having an interest in editing articles about filmmaking." Well, last I checked I didn't see any categories named "Wikipedians interested in editing articles about music/math/haiku/etc". It's assumed that many Wikipedia editors actually edit in their areas of real-life interest. I respect your large efforts at UCFD, Black Falcon, and there is no doubt in my mind you nominated this category in good faith. Please take care not to include poor rationales in your nominations—they detract from the valid points. If you don't have enough good reasons to cite in the deletion nomination, consider not nominating that category. Look at it another way: there are probably many user cats more deserving of deletion and by seeking out those low hanging categories you can accomplish more with your limited time, because the deletion rationales for those will require less defence.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to your comment at the discussion. I disagree with your evaluation that my argument is flawed and have provided an explanation there. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

B-52 Stratofortress trivia
I agree with you that the List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses should be created with some of the content in the page, but that leaves just trivia on the page. Per WP:FIVE, WP is not a "trivia collection", which I understand to mean that trivia cant stand by itself. Do you think another AFD would be warranted in 1-2 weeks if the list is moved and the page consists solely of trivia? Corpx 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the three arguments was that some or much of the content is not trivial, but is instead relevant information that is simply poorly organised. See, for instance, Sjakkalle's comment that "much of the information here is indeed valid", including information about "crew accomodations" and "some of the technical aspects" (such as fuel load). I think the ideal solution (and the one that seems to do the most to satisfy the "delete" and "merge" concerns raised at the AfD) would be to split off a List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses, trim the remaining content, and selectively merge it back into the main article. Of course, the preserved content should not be dumped back into the "Popular culture" section (most of it isn't even popular culture), but rather integrated in the main text.
 * Since that is a relatively complex merge, it will probably require involvement from those editors most informed about and involved with the subject. For instance, I'm pretty sure that it's not necessary to note the 1963 B-52C crash in Maine in the main article (perhaps the crash deserves its own article?). However, I cannot say whether information about ejection seats, on-board accomodations, landing gear, and so on is relevant.
 * To be honest, I do not think renominating the article after the list of surviving B-52s is moved is warranted for two reasons. First, unless an identical list exists in the history of B-52 Stratofortress, the B-52 Stratofortress trivia article may not be deleted per the GFDL. Second, those who supported the split did not suggest redirecting or deleting the article thereafter. I think a "split off, trim, and merge back" approach is the most productive, but it will almost surely require the involvement of one or more editors knowledgeable about aviation articles. I think a discussion at Talk:B-52 Stratofortress would be more likely to result in getting rid of the article than another AfD. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cliff and Nina AFD

 * Link to the discussion: Articles for deletion/Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt

I am confused by the no consensus closure. If you're discounting the notability by association arguments then there's basically nothing left but deletion !votes per WP:PLOT. Otto4711 12:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try to explain the reason for my closure. The discussion saw comment by six editors: you, Shalom, Flyer22, 140.254.225.30, SFGiants, and Giggy.
 * You initially based your nomination on WP:PLOT; after the addition of the "Cultural impact" section, your argument focused more on notability.
 * Shalom supported deleting the article per your original reasoning (WP:PLOT).
 * Flyer22 opposed deletion by first challenging the WP:PLOT argument by adding the "Cultural impact" section and subsequently arguing that notability is met through the sources.
 * 140.254.225.30 argued to keep "because article looks good and editor(s) are attempting to improve it".
 * SFGiants suggested redirecting, but provided no reason as to why (in the absence of any other information, I assumed it was "per nom").
 * Giggy recommended keeping based on a 'notability by association' argument. This is generally a weak argument to make and has no formal basis in policy; the fact that it was made without some type of detailed justification led me to discount it.


 * So, discounting the "looks good" and 'notability by association' arguments, the discussion involved (initially) WP:PLOT and (subsequently) notability. The WP:PLOT argument was largely addressed by the addition of the "Cultural impact" section. The cultural impact of the fictional couple may not be notable, but that's a different issue from simply being a plot summary.


 * The discussion regarding notability was essentially a debate between you and Flyer22 and revolved around whether the coverage was trivial. That was the focal point of the discussion but it unfortunately did not receive adequate comment. I initially thought of relisting the nomination to solicit more comments, but felt that would not be productive given all of the unrelated and/or repetitive "white noise". I would suggest renominating the article after first giving Flyer22 some time to work on it (and perhaps even notifying him of your intention to renominate the article unless it improves further).


 * I hope this clarifies the closure. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

UCFD fix
Thanks for fixing that typo on UCFD. I was trying to fix it when you fixed it; I do scan through to look for that sort of thing. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was just checking the status of my nomination (the "blue screens of death" category) and noticed it. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of template on WP:NPOV
Just wondering if you read the relevant section on the talk page or not before removing the template (I didn't see you comment there or anything). Richard001 06:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will comment there shortly. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, though I'm still not fully convinced as the systematic bias category is actually located within the NPOV category. Are you sure it's not a part of NPOV considerations? Richard001 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my somewhat long-winded reply here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sdk 813 and Da8 kd2
Re your message: Sorry to spoil you fun. =) I was looking through Recent Changes in the userspace and saw you were reverting a bunch of stuff, so I went and took a look.  Once I recognized SummerThunder ("Hey, didn't I block that account?"), I jumped in and deleted all the random Category pages and blocked the accounts.  I also protected all of the various sockpuppet tagged userpages as he always edits his old accounts.  One of these days, I hope that guy gives up.  Wishful thinking, probably. =\ -- Gogo Dodo 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Re your message: I don't think WP:BEANS is much of a problem for this one. He is surprisingly creative in what he targets, yet also extremely predictable.  Sad really, but oh, well... -- Gogo Dodo 05:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Re your message: The really sad part is that the list is probably incomplete. I went ahead and protected the tagged user sockpuppet pages since he will inevitably try to change them.  Probably a good idea to do the same on any other accounts of his that you block. -- Gogo Dodo 05:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Wikipedians with IBS
Dunno why it was, I made a null edit to the person's userpage and it purged the category. All clear for deletion now. And thanks for the heads up on the other note. ^ demon [omg plz] 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
At first you made the comment

"Rfwoolf, Guy's personal attack does not justify your name-calling ('cronies'). Please refrain from such comments. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)" At first I saw this as a sarcastic rebuttle, rather unfair, to let Guy's comment slide and pick me out for something that's a bit of a stretch. However I have seen your comment to Guy on the talk page, however buried, and would like to thank you. My concerns of your bias are now relieved. Rfwoolf 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied at your talk page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

SPA bot idea
I ran across your idea for a bot on the bot request page. I don't know much about bots, but I think this is a great idea, even for pretty old articles. I don't think it's unusual that there's an older article that nobody stumbled on yet but is clearly spam or whatever. I don't know about the timing of checking them all, but I think it would be worth it. I would like to see this done, just to get a sense of how many of these there are. If this gets made, drop me a line to check out what the results are. Rigadoun (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:JzG
Hi,

Just thought I'd give you a bit of praise for the way you tried to calm the flames on User talk:JzG - a perfect example of being both an admin and civil! I was merely reading the raging debate and realised that your comments seemed to be the only ones without a hidden agenda and without taking sides.

Didn't seem like anybody else was going to say it, so there - I have. Well done! Two small edits that tried to have a large effect, largely over looked by two sides of a debate that was obviously going nowhere fast.

Best wishes,

–MDCollins (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Can you believe it, the only admin with the balls to tell another admin that he's violating WP:NPA. Quite sad really. Actually come to think of it, it's very very disturbing. Even look at the Noticeboard and see how all the admins were pussyfooting around it. Keep on keeping on! Rfwoolf —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC).

Comment moved to new section by Rfwoolf
I need help. I am a model trying to submit myself to wiki. A lot of my photographs have the photographer's logo on them. I am the model in these photos and have rights to these photos. I don't understand what I need to do in order to submit my photos. Could you help me with this please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katelynkostlich (talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Saga Continues
Just to inform you, that Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence page in which you voted for keep was speedy-deleted by User_talk:Radiant citing that it was an attack page. A good-willed editor has already listed it in Deletion Review, you can find the discussion currently ensuing here: Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_12

Naturally, you may be too busy or not interested and of course I respect that. I am merely informing you. Thank you Rfwoolf 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me please?
I saw that you made an edit on User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson concerning his speedy deletions on numerous articles. He happened to delete two of my photos that I personally took posted on the Brimstone article, and ensured that they were put in under free-use according to wiki guidelines. There was no reason for them to be deleted, and he did so without a blink of an eye. Considering you are an administrator, I was hoping that you could help me with this situation as so they may be restored. I appreciate your help, and thank you in advance for your cooperation. WrestlefnLI 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am currently monitoring the situation and will, if necessary, restore the images myself. However, I would like to allow Jeffrey O. Gustafson the opportunity to respond to your comment (he is fairly quick in replying) before taking any action. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help, I appreciate it! WrestlefnLI 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Similar problem- Maybe you could help me?
I noticed your comments on user Jeffrey_O._Gustafson's talk page relating to his speedy deletions. I figured I'd try to appeal to your sense of fairness on this matter, when I noticed that another user had already contacted you concerning the same article. Maybe you could help me to resolve my issue with user Jeffrey_O._Gustafson, or at least help me get on the right track to getting my image(s) restored. Thank you. --YeLLeY511 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As Jeffrey O. Gustafson has been willing to communicate with you so far, I suggest letting the discussion proceed to its conclusion. If the result is not to your satisfaction and you still believe at that time that use of the images is permitted under Wikipedia's copyright and non-free content policies, I think your best course of action would be to request a formal deletion review so as to solicit broader community input. Though Jeffrey O. Gustafson's deletions seem to have been technically out-of-process (in that he skipped the step of formally challenging the copyright status of the images – via dfu if tagged as fair use and via Images and media for deletion if tagged as public domain), I do not feel comfortable simply restoring the images given the issues involved. You can also always pose a question at the media copyright helpdesk. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Africa Portal
Thanks for your comment on the Africa Portal/featured article issue. As I understand you are the only one working on is at the moment, so I'll follow your judgment on the featured articles as they are displayed. It looks fine as it is, except the read more... links are missing at the bottom (or alternatively the article name can be wikilinked from the preview itself). I'll see if I can fix this.

I'm quite busy IRL at the moment but if I have more time I will try helping you out some with the portal, as I've been looking for some new project to work on and Africa is one of my favorite subjects (mostly the North & West as I've been there a couple of times).

Feer 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Status of Template:Infobox Military Conflict (4 sided)
Hi. Template:Infobox Military Conflict (4 sided), which you created, is currently unused and seems to have fulfilled the purpose it was created for. If there is no particular reason to retain it, would you mind tagging it for deletion with db-author? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can but why? :) It may be used later on. Does it cause a problem? -- Cat chi? 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Just routine maintenance, I suppose. I encountered the page while randomly browsing through templates and suggested deleting it because it is unused and has been for a while. I also can think of no conflict where there have been four distinct (i.e., not allied) fighting sides. If you think it merits retention, would you please replace the "temporary template" message with some basic documentation (nothing too detailed, but so that someone can know how to use it if the need ever arises). Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done as you asked. I really think the template may be used for a 4-way conflict. There are plenty of those - mostly allied two sides which can be presented individually with this. -- Cat chi? 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

F-16 and F-4 user cats discussion
Psstt--it's Horologium, not Hologrium. (smile) Horologium actually means something (check the Wikipedia article); I don't think Hologrium is a word in any language. Horologium t-c 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!


Here's a ratel for you! Ratels somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Hús ö  nd  01:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah! That was funny, but next time please don't provide a link to the new user log. That sight causes me to compulsively drool and swoon. :-D Carnivoresque regards, Hús  ö  nd  01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the unexpected barnstar, it was a very kind gesture of yours. :-) Best regards and sunny greetings from the Algarve, Hús  ö  nd  20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Chinese martial artists
Yes I was unsure what to do exactly. Most of the subcategories only have lowercase within the text but this is the only one where a country is named. If you think a change is better please feel free.Peter Rehse 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to your message
It's funny, you're already the third user who has offered to nominate me for adminship since early June. Apparently the first two were not aware of my past history...

I'll accept a nomination when I feel almost certain that I will pass RFA. Otherwise, I don't think it's worth the bother. When I feel the time is right, I will give you a heads-up if I remember. Best regards, Shalom Hello 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification
Response at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification Jeepday (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP
At least three editors (myself, User:Roger Davies, and User:Crum375, have registered strong objection in the past few hours to the change you want to make. You need to build consensus further before making a change to a core policy. - Crockspot 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will post a comment shortly to the BLP talk page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made a counter compromise here that does not weaken the policy (maybe even strengthens it a bit), but gets what I think you want in there. - Crockspot 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Noelle & AG III
Not to be a nag, but citing your user page:

Encyclopedicity — Article topics should be notable and articles must exclude content that is unencyclopedic.

Does this not clearly indicate that both should be deleted? AG III is so far only significant as a chapter of AG II's life. --Indeed, not to minimize the sad accident that he suffered and how this may have affected AG II's political career. All the more the reason why this material should be incorporated in the AG II article, in truncated form. Dogru144 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've replied in detail at the AfD. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rdwoolf evidence page deletion review
I saw your comment on the DRV. Obviously, I didn't actually early-close the thing, but I'm still not convinced that it wouldn't have benefitted everyone if I had ended the discussion on Saturday and said enough already. I am a fairly strong proponent of due process, but there comes a time when some things are just not worth talking about any more, and this was one of them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you that this issue is "not worth talking about any more" (it probably reached this stage a few days ago) but think that an early closure would just have the effect of perpetuating it. There's also the fact that I don't view the deletion to have been an appropriate application of G10, but that's a different issue. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Greek Agate
Hi, I created an article called Greek Agate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate Would you mind looking at it and cleaning up or editing it? Thanks! Neptunekh 04:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I noticed that the article is substantially identical to the text of this webpage, which is copyrighted (at the bottom, it notes: © Copyright 2000 - 2006, Andinia.com LLC). Content added to Wikipedia must not replicate the wording of copyrighted works. You may write about information available in those sources, but must do so in your own words (and must also cite the work). For that reason, I have reverted the most recent change to the article. Please see Copyrights. I would be happy to take a look at it again if you rewrite it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Did This Article Get Messed Up?
This article: English Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador. It says the original was deleted or something but there doesn't seem to be any deletion logs. . . should I just revert back to the old revert or smack a cleanup tag on it? Or has it been deleted and the name changed? -WarthogDemon 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest just reverting it and noting something like "reverting ... no action in 2 weeks" in the edit summary. I'm not sure why User:WayneRay thinks the article was deleted. I wasn't able to find any deletion log for that or any of the related articles (Trinity Bight, Trinity Bight, Newfoundland and Labrador, English Harbour). Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Plainlinks
Anytime pal :-) -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie |undefined 10:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Asking a favour
I was hoping you could do me a favour or two. I've a couple concerns that require attention, and my posting them at the pump and the template's talk page, respectively, have not had any results yet. The first is something I'm hesitant to do due to a conflict of interest explained at WP:VP/A and at Talk:SaskTel/Archives/2013, and the other is about a protected template on the main page, mentioned at Template talk:In the news. Thanks for whatever help you can lend,  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, someone just caught one of those, but the SaskTel article is still a concern.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the removed the paragraph in question and posted at Talk:SaskTel/Archives/2013. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC for Jeff
Obviously he's not listening to it, do you think it's too early to start considering an RfAr, or should we not even go that way (sorry, but I had a run in with him before, and personally, I want him to shape up).  Kwsn (Ni!) 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think RfC's have a set time limit, but 10 days with a unanimous response seems good enough. Though I still hope to avoid an RfAr, it seems a necessary step if he will not change his behaviour. Before deciding how or when to proceed, I will talk with Jeffrey one more time (probably within the next 24 hours). The reason I want to wait a little is (1) to let Jeffrey know the results of the RfC, (2) to inform him that the next step may well be an arbitration request, and (3) to check his deletion log to see if he continues to speedily delete pages that do not meet the criteria (the last time I looked was about a week ago).
 * If he gives no indication that he cares about the concerns raised by his fellow editors – or the current consensus as reflected in the wording of policies – and that he intends to continue his actions, an arbitration is inevitable in my view. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion tables
Can you comment on: Deletion_policy? Thanks :) FT2 (Talk 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied at the policy talk page. I essentially agree with Radiant that the policy page should be reserved for general policy than detailed instruction. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jmac5595 Question
I didn't cause anyone's computer to crash did I? Because I actually reported this to NawlinWiki. >_> -WarthogDemon 23:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I have a fairly good connection. My computer froze up for about 30 seconds, but nothing else. Still, this was the longest test page I'd encountered. #2 was Revert-only sandbox/67, which was 1980 KB, so about half the length of this one. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was just worried. I too have a very good high speed connection, and my browser ended up crashing. (Though maybe it's because I have a flash site open in another tab as I go through wikipedia.) Anyways, thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Xamdi is back at it with the fake airlines
I reported it as vandalism, but just to let you know: one of the fake airlines is back today, after you deleted them and warned Xamdi yesterday. If I was an admin, I would block indefinitely. That's probably why I'm not an admin. Kww 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. His actions certainly do merit a block, though perhaps not an indefinite one (he's already been blocked by another admin for 31 hours). I've bookmarked his contributions page and will monitor it to see if he recreates the page after the block expires, in which case I will block the account indefinitely. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD discussion
Hi. I'm contacting you in reference to your participation in the Paul Harris deletion discussion. That article, among others, has been nominated for deletion and I think many of the arguments you made on Paul Harris can be applied to the current discussion. Thanks. Chengwes 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Prawn farm massacre
I would like to turn your attention to the the acts of User:Iwazaki here. He takes off a citation to a book. Though taking off this citation does not affect the article I am worried that without this citation this article could be put for a AFD or might be added with different tags (like NPOV/OR ect). I would like for you to take a look. Thanks Watchdogb 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I checked around a little and found that the contents of the book are controversial, with some praising it as providing insight into the SL conflict and others claiming that it reflects the misperceptions of an outsider. That said, there are liable to be such disagreements about any book on a political topic. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, the publisher, is a respected one, as far as I can tell, and the book has received positive reviews from Library Journal and Kirkus Reviews (see the Amazon.com entry ). Thus, I see no obvious reason that the citation should be removed.
 * As you have reverted the removal and are currently discussing the matter on the talk page, I'll take no action at this point. However, I will keep an eye on the page. I hope this helps. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your reply. Watchdogb 18:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They are removing it yet again 15:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs).
 * I have posted to the article's talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

College of Dracology
Greetings. You deleted this article after a solid debate. I was wondering if it is possible for administrators to find the text of deleted articles such as this. I'm hoping to recreate this article (while asserting its notability), but want to make sure that I'm not re-hashing what's already been rehashed. Thanks.--Eva b d  16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find a Google cache of the page, but I can restore the content to a subpage of your userpage. The main concern in the AfD was the absence of coverage in reliable, independent sources (the sole reference was "The Coat of Arms (ISSN 0010-003X), XV (new series) no.206, 223-231"). If such sources exist and you intend to add them, please confirm that you want me to restore the article and specify the location you'd like it restored; if you have no preference, I'll restore it to User:Evadb/College of Dracology. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would be willing to put it up on that sub page, that would be great. I'll get to work as soon as possible looking through my library for sources backing up the article. Thanks for your help.--Eva b d  22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|px]] Done. If it turns out that there is not sufficient information available about the organisation, let me know and I will redelete the page (or just tag it with db-userreq). Good luck on fixing it up, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do.--Eva <font color="Red">b <font color="Green">d  23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, since this article has been recreated, I think it still might be worth looking at in regards to Notability. I'm not concerned enough about it to put it on AFD yet, but I think it's still worth looking at. FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With 6 unique references, three of which seem to be independent, I think a case for notability could be made (though I haven't looked at all into the quality of coverage). I'd like to wait a few days to see if Evadb will make any subsequent changes before taking the time to investigate further. However, thanks for mentioning it here ... I had only watchlisted the userfied page and so would not have known about the recreation. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I'm doubtful, and I'm only counting 5 unique references, none of which strike me as especially convincing on the face of it. And while some may be sufficient within the realm of heraldry, I feel the Bristol mayor's listing is nothing more than a kitchen sink approach.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the discrepancy in the reference count comes from the fact that I counted "Dragonlore Issues 1 to 9" and "Dragonlore Publications" separately. In any case, it still comes down to three independent references (The Heraldry Gazette, The Coat of Arms, and the mayoral reference), the latter of which is (as you mentioned) a rather trivial mention. Like I said, I think a case for notability could be made, I'm just not sure how strong that case would be. I suppose that it mostly depends on the nature of the "Coat of Arms" and "Heradly Gazette" sources. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)