User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 6

UCFD

 * Looks like you've got yourself a big pair of "stars" there pardner : ) - jc37 12:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Two in nine days? ... Cool! Maybe I ought to start thinking about joining a cabal or two. ;-) Black Falcon (Talk) 05:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AtTask
Hello,

I made two small edits on the AtTask page today. I added two sentences about the integration features of the software, and soon after that, it became a candidate for deletion for various reasons include notability, self-promotion, etc. I noticed that this was debated in February and it was decided that the article should be kept. I'd be more than happy to undo all my changes and revert to the old article if my changes somehow made the article a candidate for deletion. I noticed you participated in the February debate and was hoping you could share your opinion. Vpdjuric (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric

User:Lynbarn/Userboxes/User UWE
Hi Black Falcon,

I'm not sure what was happening here, but thanks for fixing it. Please could you explain what you meant by looping categorisation and the symptoms so I can avoid it in future. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied at User talk:Lynbarn ( diff ). – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Your attention please
When have time. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to hate high school all over again
BF, is it really necessary to nominate all the high school user cats individually? Could we do them as a group, as is commonly done on Xfds, and sometimes even on UCFD? Aargh. &mdash;ScouterSig 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks for the hard work anyway. &mdash;ScouterSig 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry ... :) I've been going through the "Wikipedians by alma mater" category tree one-by-one, so it was simpler (at the time) to make individual nominations. The good news is that I think there are no more than 2 or so high school cats remaining, so there shouldn't be a repeat of this. Still, for the future, I'll try to remember to do group nominations whenever my nomination rationale will be identical across cases. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Surnames
I just found this article List of Irish surnames starting with R and on review it appears to be a child (poorly built) of List of Irish surnames, which was deleted per Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames 2. I see that User:Quarl is not currently active and that you participated in the discussion, so I bring it to you to ask your opinion if the 25 (none for "X") child articles should be deleted base on Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames 2 or if they need to get run through AFD, I hesitate to do prods on them for the boarderline consideration of the preexisting AFD, if it the AFD was enough they should go soonest, if not they need their own AFD it would seem. Jeepday (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I wouldn't mind deletion via prod, I think it's likely that the proposed deletions would be contested. So, I'd suggest starting a mass AfD nomination to have the contents of the lists transwikied to Wiktionary, merged to wiktionary:Appendix:Irish surnames, and deleted. In the end, I think that this would probably be the least time-consuming approach. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I will post them. Jeepday (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good ... I've left a comment at the AFD. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I went to inform the creator at User talk:BlakeCS which lead me to leave a comment on the AFD, you may want to (or not) change your recommendation. Jeepday (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed my recommendation in light of the new information. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

UCFD--Backing off for now
After watching the silliness unfold over the bloody stupid admin categories (and the shameless ILIKEIT votes by admins who should know better), I'm done with UCFD for now. I fully expect that the Doc G's POINTy new category and the rouge admin category will be retained, buried by a bunch of me-too votes by admins we've never seen before (and likely will never see again) in the confines of UCFD. If they are retained through sheer numbers, I'll be removing the UCFD page from my watchlist, because it will indicate to me that the process is broken. Good luck, and keep fighting the good fight.  Horologium  (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the rouge admins category will be going anywhere anytime soon. Its nomination is becoming a yearly event.
 * The trout category is more likely to have stemmed from Deletion review/Angela Beesley. See GRBerry's comment on that page, and Mercury's response to it.
 * But besides that, while of course you're welcome to contribute to Wikipedia however you choose, I hope that you reconsider about UCFD.
 * While you're considering, here's some "bedtime reading": User talk:Dmcdevit/Archive19. Just read on down from there. (And check the later archives for other UCFD-related discussions, if you wish).
 * Hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 00:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I too hope that you'll not leave UCFD entirely, though I can certainly understand your exasperation with it. To be honest, I considered WP:SNOWing the "rouge admin" discussion within about an hour of its nomination. I do support listifying/deleting, but realistically ... well, like JC said, it's not going anywhere anytime soon. The "trout" category is something entirely different, however, and I'm bothered by the idea that every little joke might merit its own category. Fundamentally, it is no different from the recently-deleted Category:Users who are full of LOL (or something similar), except that it contains only admins. Anyway, I still hold out some hope that the course of the discussion will turn around. Best, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I hereby applaud your dedication to UCFD as I got sick of it a while ago, in part due to double standards and trends that come and go. –Pomte 03:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If at least part of the applause is directed at me, then thank you. :) Looking back, I feel a sort of wry amusement at the fact that, when I posted my first nominations at WP:UCFD in June, I thought that it would take 2-3 weeks at most to do a general clean-up of the user category system. After all, with about five thousand categories (at the time), how bad could it be? Ask and ye shall receive, I suppose... Black Falcon (Talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ROFL. It seems to me that certain parts of the user cat structure are basically unfixable (Category:Wikipedians by interest, anyone?), and some of the repetitive debates over a short period of time should have been avoided (how many UCFD discussions did we have on Category:Gay Wikipedians?), but the biggest frustration is having to re-delete categories that were deleted previously. As I have pointed out to a couple of other editors, five of the user language categories that I nominated for deletion were recreated within a month of their UCFD closes; four of them under the exact same name, and another under a substantially similar name. That was the reason that I stopped dealing with Babel cats, because it's disheartening to have to go through the same nonsense all over again. The flailex over Category:User als is another one at which I stopped arguing, after a stubborn user changed it back to the made-up "Alemannic", citing als.wikipedia as a precedent. And of course, we have the repetitive deletions of band fanboy cats, personal user cats, cats organizing users into groups that support or oppose core policies, and general nonsense cats like Category:Userpages That Are Full Of LOL (gahhh).
 * I am considering taking Category:Rouge admins to DRV when it is closed as keep (as appears to be likely), because none of the keep rationales rise above "It's funny", "I like it", "It's harmless" or "It's useful (for networking)". The category isn't funny (the essay is the funny part, and the userbox is the appropriate way to cite it), liking or disliking is irrelevant, it's not harmless because it will be cited as justification to keep similar cats (like the trout category, which has more votes to keep than to delete, based on numbers alone), and Wikipedia is not MySpace (or any other social network). I hate citing essays, but Arguments to Avoid in deletion discussions covers all of them. Several of the delete arguments (mine, Black Falcon's, Ben Hocking's) provide rationales for why it should NOT be maintained, including the citation of precedents. Unlike article space, precedence is relevant in categorization, so WAX, which doesn't work in article space, is commonly cited in categorization arguments.  Horologium  (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * With regarding to the "Rouge admin" discussion, it seems to me that a lot of the arguments fail to draw a distinction between deletion of the category and deletion of Rouge admin. For me, they are more frustrating than the "I like it" comments, since they carry the implication that a user category is an inseparable part of every random userbox and/or concept – a principle that has been rejected over the course of several hundred UCFDs and of several months. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, and what's even more frustrating is that most of these people are administrators, who really should know better. A recent (lengthy) discussion between jc37 and one of the ArbCom candidates (who displayed a startling lack of familiarity with UCFD processes and policy) led me to vote against that candidate in the election. When it goes to DRV, I will stress in the nomination that the category and the essay are not the same thing, and deleting the category will leave the essay and the userbox behind. I mentioned that in the discussion (twice), but the hive mind wasn't listening.  Horologium  (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Honorary membership
I am pleased to announce you that you have been accepted as an honorary member of WP:SLR. &mdash; Sebastian 19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

dyk
Thanks ... I havent looked yet ... but great! I still have to tweak it a bit... do join in if you have half an ideaVictuallers (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge
Thanks for your hard work on the List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. I am still concerned about the state of the article. I believe that there needs to be explicit attribution to the article. Some attacks are blamed on the LTTE by the Sri Lankan Forces or the Sri Lankan Government. As an involved warring party in the War the SL government/ Sri Lankan military ect are POV sources. I feel that these should be explicitly attributed. Can you please comment on this ? I will make a section in WT:SLR. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the moment, I'm trying to eliminate any duplicate entries in the list; however, I do intend to propose a set of inclusion/exclusion and sourcing standards for the list, either at its talk page or WT:SLR. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood! Great work Black Falcon. You have made wikipedia a better place yet again :) Watchdogb (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) I'm just glad that the problem of separate articles with subjective scopes is finally resolved. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Dog mine DYK
Yeah, I was rather surprised to read that it was being considered — for that reason :-) Thanks for the note, though.  Nyttend (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Episode articles not asserting notability
Should the talk page of this category be deleted as well? Cyde was the one who deleted it, but it was his bot, so since you closed the CfD, I thought you would be the best person to ask. I (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion for the category are logged elsewhere, so I've gone ahead and deleted the talk page. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

GFDL, merging, etc.
Where in the GFDL does it mention that? I'm not saying that I disbelieve you, but I've never heard that before. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. After reading through several pages of discussion, I've come to the conclusion that the GFDL makes my head hurt.


 * Thanks for the double check. Good to know. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Very cool--thanks for nominating my Charles D. Metcalf article!--Orygun (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

intro is no longer missing from redtop page
It has been something like a day and a half since I thought that I was finished with Agrostis gigantea‎ and I have discovered much about citations and a couple of new templates since then, so I actually really do appreciate that you put the intromissing template onto the page so I would tidy it up some. I put a quote there about how the grass causes allergies.

Did you know that most allergies are caused by plants whose flowers are green or gray? I am unable to cite this fact properly because my books are in a different place than I am, but it makes sense if you think about it. The brightly colored flowers attract the bugs which move their sticky pollen from one plant to another while the green flowers have to throw their pollen into the air and effectively pollinate everything that the wind can take it to.

I will not take that template off from the page; if you get a chance, I would appreciate the second look. -- carol 13:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied here. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK noms
Royal broil 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Two at once! Royal broil 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the second time I've had more than one nomination on the DYK page simultaneously. Cool! :) Black Falcon (Talk) 07:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination for Joseph Finegan was successful
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)
Notability (media) is an excellent example of creep that is being pushed by a few people for rapid acceptance. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Jack Blott
I added the in-line citation for the fact that Jack Blott played only two MLB games. Thanks for nominating the article. I think you came up with an interesting hook. I've been working on another article this week on Germany Schulz that I think could have some good hooks as well. I'd be interested in your thoughts on a possible hook for that one.Cbl62 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also wrote an article on James B. Craig on 16 December that may have a good hook, but people may tire of stories about Michigan football greats.Cbl62 (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nice comments. Actually, all three of your proposed hooks for Germany Schulz would be accurate.  On the third possible hook, both of the variations you gave are accurate.  Of all the articles I've done, I think the Schulz one may be my favorite.  How would I go about nominating it for good or feature article status? 02:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination for St Mary's Church, Cheadle
Thanks for nominating St Mary's Church, Cheadle for DYK and for letting me know you have done so. I think the hook about the cross is the better one as loads of churches have registers which go back a long way. But we can see what the assessor decides (maybe neither!). Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: DYK nomination of Rugby union in Belgium
Sounds good, mate! gaillimh Conas tá tú? 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK Nom for Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Underworld


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

Thank you so much for the nom! What a wonderful birthday gift (Dec 20 was my birthday)! By the way, if you're not patrolling new pages, how do you find all these pages? clicketyclick yaketyyak 22:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Music genres
Asking here, since it involves several noms, and I don't want to copy/paste the questions throughout the page : )

I note the article names (which I presume is the reason for your choices of rename targets), but I wonder if "...music" might be appropriate in several of the cases.

Also, there seems to be a question about shoegaze/shoegazing, with only "google" being the deciding factor for the current article name.

Other than those questions (more out of curiosity), I really have no opinions, except to applaud you for trying to find/establish a convention : ) - jc37 07:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking? or "No comment"? - jc37 09:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On break, actually. :) Personally, I'd have like to have seen "music" added to the titles of a few other categories, but I didn't think that such a proposal would gain consensus. I'll take a look at the UCFD page now and reply to any more specific comments/issues. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK Nom

 * Thanks! :) Black Falcon (Talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

UCFD action
Would you please be willing to make the necessary actions to complete my closure of User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007? --After Midnight 0001 03:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I know that it was done per the nominator's specification :-) --After Midnight 0001 04:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe :) Well, I guess that is the best way to make sure that everything takes place as intended. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK noms
Thanks for the nom. You are a nominating machine! Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Statistics
You're trained in statistics and you had the cheek to refer me to that page of prior deletion debates and to point me to the fact a page has been edited by over a thousand editors? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. ;) As to the debates in question, if you're walking away fair enough, but you've left open ended questions that I am going to answer because debate demands it. Hiding T 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm entirely shameless, didn't you know? :P ... In my defense, I only pointed you to the page on prior debates: I was conservative in the conclusions that I suggested that you draw from it (essentially, to note that being a support/oppose category by itself has been a reason for deletion in past discussions). In fact, the third paragraph of WP:UCFD/I - which I wrote before moving the page out out of my userspace - specifically warns against drawing any quick generalisations. As for the debates, I'll be happy to respond to any questions that you pose and will comment if I think it's needed, but I agree with you that we're nearing a saturation point in the discussion, where much of what we say will start to be repetition. We disagree ... it's as simple as that, I suppose. :-) Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. I guess I'm more moral, I can't really be deceitful .  What you see is what you get.  That's why it affronts me that people challenge, hypothesise or accuse me of pretence. We certainly disagree. Take care. Hiding T 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I in now way meant that the way it reads. I don't know the right way of what I meant, but that came out wrong. I apologise. Hiding T 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thought
After re-reading Kbdank71's talk page, it occurs to me that he probably hasn't received the XfD barnstar. Would you like to do the honours? : ) - jc37 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? After all his time at CFD... Well, let's see what we can do to remedy this situation. :) Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. That means a lot to me.  :D  --Kbdank71 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome : )
 * What do you (plural) think - User:After Midnight next? : ) - jc37 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He also definitely deserves one ... The Resilient Barnstar may also be fitting in light of his actions and behaviour following the insult- and threat-laden posts of a certain editor in October. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile."

Yes, absolutely, in spades. And I can think of a couple others who likely deserve this as well. - jc37 10:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you like to do it, or are you waiting for this? By the way, happy New Year! Black Falcon (Talk) 19:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I was waiting for you to give the resilient one : )
 * Though I would love some ideas for the new one as well. - jc37 12:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Statistics redux
As your statistics were the contributing factor in closing a debate I feel I have to congratulate you. You've taught me an interesting tactic in colouring debate and achieving one's desired outcome. I'll rethink my approach to intellectual honesty accordingly. Hiding T 11:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your insult might mean more if I had any idea what you were talking about. I participate in many deletion debates and can't figure out to which one you're referring, especially after my three-day hiatus. (Then again, if we accept my contention that your claims are baseless, this result is to be expected. After all, one cannot find a basis for baseless claims.) If you intend to throw out an accusation of intellectual dishonesty, perhaps you would consider offering an example of where you feel I've couloured the debate, and how? If you mean to take an intellectual approach to accusing of me of dishonesty (as opposed to the simpler style of posting random expletives), then at least do it properly. Cordially yours, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to do anything other than speak my mind. I have absolutely no idea which of my claims is baseless, but if we accept my claim that there is a cabal operating at UCFD I'd posit the result supports it. Why do I think you're intellectually dishonest?  I thought we agreed above that you're misleading people by pointing them to statistics which don't support the points you are making. Did I get that wrong? Oh, and you might want to avoid the odd typo if you take such a high minded approach. ;) I think a lot of what is happening violates fundamental principles on Wikipedia. I could never agree that a category with 600 members should be deleted because two people think so, you have indicated you don't have a problem with that.  I believe that mind-set is at odds with the very methods through which Wikipedia works, and undermines it.  But, yes, I'm probably getting my knickers too twisted over it.  It will work out.  Either your ends will justify your means or they won't. The worst thing is, I don't actually care about the categories so much as I do seeing Wikipedians I respect do things which for me violate fundamental principles. See you on more sunny occasions. Hiding T 12:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, I'm trying to prick your conscience. If it's not going to work, you're right, we should agree to disagree.  I'd rather not fall out with you. I'm well aware of my own character flaws to know where I'm going wrong here.  There's no need to belittle my lack of education.  I could quite happily call a spade a spade if that's what you prefer. Hiding T 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We most certainly hadn't agreed on that. I didn't respond to your post in the "Statistics" thread above only because of your follow-up comment: "Sorry, I in now way meant that the way it reads. I don't know the right way of what I meant, but that came out wrong. I apologise." In that section, you retracted your accusation against me, leading me to believe that the issue was closed.


 * So that my position is clear, let me explicitly state that I have not deliberately used statistics to mislead anyone on Wikipedia, nor do I believe that I've accidentally made unsupported conclusions on the basis of such statistics. I try to be careful when wording my comments and to ensure that any conclusions I suggest are reasonably supported by any data or information to which I point. Naturally, there is sometimes an element of personal interpretation involved, since any statistics that I offer would fall in the category of supporting evidence, rather than conclusive proof. But if we disagree about the extent to which the evidence supports the conclusions, then that's a difference of opinion, not a sign of deception or moral depravity on my part or yours. While we're on the subject: there is nothing misleading about stating that prior precedents exist to delete support/oppose categories; the precedents may be of poor quality according to your personal standards, but that is a different issue.


 * I don't want to continue the discussion regarding the number of people required to delete a category of a certain # of members – an approach that I consider, due to its wholly numerical nature, to be antithetical to the principle of reasoned debate and consensus – but I would ask you to consider the following: in general, it only takes one or two people to create and populate a category of 600 members.


 * If your goal was to prick my conscience, I can assure you that it won't work, and not because of a lack of conscience on my part. I'm not quite sure which part of my comment you felt belitted you, but I just want to say that was not my intent: I do not know anything about you or your educational background. Also, if you were surprised at my reaction, then you should view in the context of the fact that an accusation of intellectual dishonesty is about the only thing I would take personally, as I consider that to be a claim of fact as opposed to an opinion (e.g. an accusation of immorality).


 * I too would prefer not to have a falling-out, so I ask you to either retract your claim or, if you genuinely feel that I've been intellectually dishonest, to substantiate it with diffs, so that I could have the opportunity to clarify any misunderstanding (as I wrote above, I've not deliberately used statistics to mislead anyone, nor do I believe I've done so accidentally). If you choose to do neither, I will be disappointed, but I will not pursue the matter. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, happy new year. That said, it's your use of your statistics as most recently seen in this nom which is causing me the issue, especially in light of the third paragraph you pointed me to.  You declare in your nom that your statistics assert such a precedence exists, when your note in the third paragraph warns that such a conclusion should not be drawn. Is it in fact you assertion that your statistics show a precedence that such categories be deleted, or is it your assertion that the statistics show that categories which have been nominated for deletion, which represent a certain ratio of all categories, have typically been deleted, but that this can not in itself set a precedence since there are too many variables involved? I don't think a statistician would claim a precedence.  A trend, with underlying factors, but not a precedence. Hope that clears up my assertion. I was also troubled by the close of User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007, I don't see any statistical invalidation therein, and personally it would be dishonest for me not to correct such an assertion were it made of me. Hiding T 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you too. Thank you for providing a diff as I think I can now confidently identify the root of this whole misunderstanding: you interpret a link to WP:UCFD/I as the equivalent of a statistical assertion, whereas I consider it nothing more than a "See also" link. Let me state from the very start my contention that simple statistics cannot reveal precedent; precedent is rooted in agreement reached through discussion, which is something that a simple tally of keep/delete results cannot hope to capture. So, a conclusion about precedent neither should nor can be drawn from the mere fact that all of the discussions in a given section closed as "delete" (as emphasised in the third paragraph of WP:UCFD/I).


 * Then why have I linked to WP:UCFD/I in the "Vimy Ridge" nomination? Well, quite simply, because it's shorter than linking to all of the individual discussions. I assume that interested editors will actually look at the content of the discussions, which I do assert establish an actual precedent against "Wikipedians who travel" categories (in that an argument against this type of category was introduced and gained consensus support, and it's applicability as a general principle was reconfirmed in subsequent discussions). Now, others may disagree about this in particular cases, but that's why "precedent" is not a speedy deletion criterion and I initiated a discussion. ... Disagreement of this type is not any reason to allege intellectual dishonesty or moral corruption.


 * If you think I assume too much about the degree to which editors will research a nomination, then perhaps you can fault me for that, but I've done everything I could think of to emphasise arguments over numbers: I wrote the third paragraph of WP:UCFD/I and my nomination statements contain actual arguments, as opposed to simply "Delete per WP:UCFD/I" (which is useful only in the least controversial of cases). The situation is essentially the same with the "Wikimedia and advertising" discussion: I did not offer any statistical validation there either, but only links to a set of discussions whose content I believe demonstrates the existence of a precedent against "support/oppose" categories. I will tweak the wording of the "Vimy Ridge" nomination to avoid any confusion about what I am and am not asserting, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on the revised version. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you then happy to clear up with the closer at the Wikimedia and advertising debate that your remarks have thus been misinterpreted? This is where the substance of my claim lies. I believe there is dishonesty in allowing that confusion to continue. If you do not agree with that, I will not argue, but personally it would be dishonest for me to achieve something through improper means. That is what I believe has happened given the closer's statement and your statements. Does that help clarify?  There is no statistical validation, therefore we should make that clear. I do not overly mind that the closer weighed your comments above others; that I think that is wrong and not acting impartially is not your concern, but does strike to other issues I have with UCFD. That can happen, and I am perfectly happy to concede that admins have such discretion when closing debates.  Personally I saw it as no consensus, but I am no process junkie and have distaste for jumping through endless hoops.  What I overly mind is that you appear to be allowing the closer to close inappropriately without seeking to correct the misunderstanding. Other points of contention we might possibly have may be that the third paragraph of WP:UCFD/I is not so easily seen when one is pointed to a subsection of the page, and whether your statistics actually demonstrate the existence of a precedent against "support/oppose" categories as opposed to underlying trends at UCFD taking into consideration the bias of the types of categories likely to be nominated and the pool of closers and participants involved.  I think we should be very careful in declaring they demonstrate a precedent amongst Wikipedians. I would think therefore there should be care taken in representing what the statistics mean, and I would hope you agree. Personally I'd be couching as "the way debates have been going appears to point to the deletion of these types of categories". I have asserted nowt as fact. Hiding T 14:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe you've misinterpreted the remarks of the closer. After Midnight stated: "comments about using these categories as measures of opinion (Sarek, Hiding) are highly dissuaded by the statistical invalidity of such assertions as argued by Black Falcon". So, therefore, he did not interpret my comments as providing any statistical validation for claims of precedent, but rather invalidation of claims that these categories are "measures of opinion". The two issues are distinct and the closer's consideration of one has little relevance to his consideration of the other.


 * As for the point about the prominence of the third paragraph of "WP:UCFD/I", I would welcome any suggestions you may have. While bias in the types of categories likely to be nominated may sometimes be an issue (it is not an issue when all categories of a particular type have been nominated and deleted), you're again looking at things purely from the perspective of the ratio of "keep" and "delete" results. Such an approach ignores the content of the discussions, which is the thing I'm trying to bring to the attention of potential discussants. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no statistical invalidity in my claims that one can use the categories to gauge opinion, only disagreement over the weighting assigned. If your opinion wins the day, fair enough, but it should not win for reasons that are not true. I would hope you would agree. As to your points regarding my perspective, I have no idea how they relate to the matter at hand, nor how you glean that to be my perspective. To clear up the confusion over pointing people to WP:UCFD/I, either point them to the page as a whole or add a link to the disclaimer at each section as is done at that arguments to avoid in deletion debates. Hiding T 11:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is invalidity in your claims that the categories can be used to gauge opinion -- see biased sample, reliability (statistics), and validity (statistics) -- and it's a fairly minor point to quibble over whether the invalidity is statistical or theoretical and based in statistical concepts. (The distinction is critical in statistical contexts, but not so in the context of a CFD discussion.) I will keep in mind your advice regarding WP:UCFD/I; I personally dislike the section-disclaimer format of WP:AADD, so I'll likely just try to be more precise in the wording and linking of future UCFD nominations. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Either my sampling is biased and yours at WP:UCFD/I is, or neither are. You're working with statistics in a far more empirical way than I was suggesting could be done with user cats.  I was looking to do so in line with WP:CONSENSUS, and I still feel the cats are valid tools for searching for indicators of opinion.  I don't believe the statistics you are compiling at your page support the strength of some of the assertions made of them, but I feel sure that the user cats would have supported the claim that this number of people have categorised themselves as such.  I'm very careful in what I assert, and I don't feel I see the same care in some statements you make.   But I give.  I'll retract whatever you want me to retract and move on.  I can't help the way I feel about what's going on, though. I can't assert something that I know in my heart isn't real, but I couldn't tell someone they shouldn't assert something when I know in my heart it could be asserted. All the best, Hiding T 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand why you feel that the categories are valid indicators of public opinion... From an empirical standpoint, there is virtually no question that they are not. (Perhaps our definitions of the term "valid" differ...) I also maintain that they are invalid as indicators of consensus, since I believe that consensus requires an exchange of arguments and ideas, which a category simply cannot provide. The fact that 100 people have categorised themselves into a user category to express their support for something is not especially interesting or useful (from a statistical standpoint) once you consider how the categories are populated, as well as the fact that Wikipedia has more than 5 million user accounts. The fact would be useful only if one was able to make valid generalisations based on the distribution of membership across a given set of support/oppose categories, but that is not the case. (Note that "public opinion", "consensus", and "number of people [who] have categorised themselves " are not equivalent concepts, and the # of people in a user category is not a reliable or a valid measure of opinion or consensus.)


 * In view of our differing opinions on the standards for user categories and the amount and nature of discussion required to achieve their deletion or retention, it is quite natural that we disagree about the strength of various assertions made on the basis of claimed prior precedents. I have no problem with the fact that our opinions on the matter differ or with the possibility that we may be unable to reach agreement on this issue. It was your accusation of intellectual dishonesty that irked me. In the end, I'm not asking you to change the way you feel. However, it's natural that I will reply to an assertion that I perceive to be clearly inaccurate (e.g. the assertion that user categories can be useful as indicators of public opinion). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Actually, I only nominated the article. I've copied the text of this notice to the creator's talk page. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on renaming the Wikipedians in quality category to Wikipedia quality assurance specialists. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Miller17CU94 ( diff ). – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Pakistanphobia
I noticed you participated in the Articles for deletion/Anti-Pakistani sentiment. The article Anti-Pakistani sentiment was eventually moved to Pakistanphobia. Now Pakistanphobia has been nominated for deletion. I thought you might be interested in participating in the AfD debate at Articles for deletion/Pakistanphobia. Feel free to come by and contribute your thoughts.Bless sins (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Human rights in Sri Lanka
I edited the page 'Human right Violation in Sri Lanka', which contains very bias content. You messaged me saying I am expressing my own ideas. Then why have you allowed somebody to put misleading incorrect data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.149.63 (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits because: (1) you deleted significant sections of the text without justification, replacing it with a duplicate "Background" section, and (2) your additions violated the neutral point of view and no original research policies (e.g. "LTTE, the bloodiest terrorists group in the world", "LTTE terrorists cold blooded killed several Sri Lankan Army soldiers").


 * If the article contains information that is misleading or inaccurate, you are of course free to remove it. However, you should not add personal commentary or inherently biased statements to the article, and I would encourage you to explain changes in the edit summary field. You can also raise specific concerns on the article's talk page (here). Alternatively, if you could point out what content, in particular, is misleading or incorrect, I would do my best to address the issue (assuming, of course, that we can agree on the problem). Please let me know if I can help in any way. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: CSD discussion
Thanks for the heads-up. I commented about WP:DOT. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Baume
Thanks for DYK nominiation. I have been on short break.--Grahame (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your DYKs
Damn you are good at it now any way when you have time we have a few issues that need your attention in SLR. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll take a look at the SLR issues shortly - I've been pressed for time recently, and so could not give much attention to anything WP-related. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall past requests redirect
Hi. Last November you speedily deleted this redirect, leaving these broken links, all from archives with prohibitions against further editing. If such prohibitions apply even to fixing broken links, could you restore the redirect (now to here) for the sake of users browsing the archives? Thanks, Tim Smith (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ . I've restored and retargeted the redirect. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship and Toby (Timmy)
At User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/December_2007 we discussed something I referred to as Timmy, and you expressed interest. Turns out my memory was faulty, the rejected proposal is at Toby. I hadn't realised it was over two years ago. It caused quite a stir at the pump, which was more active in those days, but I doubt much of that is archived except in the page history. Hiding T 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that such a proposal was technically feasible ... I'll skim through the talk page for more information. Thank you for the link, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:User als-N
Why did you delete the page category Category:User als-N? That makes no sence - this category should exist just for reason of logics an systematics! The deleting of the Category:User als is a logic error --> in tis case you should consequently delete all the language User cateogries including Category:User en!!! I decoverd this remarking that als-bable does not work in the English Wikipedia. So please reconsider to undo the delete of the Category User als which of course is not just a fanboy category. Alemanic (Swiss German etc.) is the native language of alomost 4 milion people, i.e. the the most spoken language of Switzerland). Sincerely DidiWeidmann (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted Category:User als-N because it was a recreation of material deleted per a deletion discussion. The language user category system follows the convention of the ISO 639-3 coding system, which reserves "als" for Tosk Albanian; thus, for consistency, user categories for the Alemannic dialects should be created under their corresponding codes (gct for Alemán Coloniero, gsw for Swiss German, and so on) or perhaps under the overarching code "gsw". If you believe an error of some kind was made, then you may contact the administrator who closed the 22 August 2007 discussion. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answering and sorry for my Swiss English. Your answer sounds logic! But I can also understand the so called stubbing alemannic user who restored the category: We have now a practical problem: The ISO 639-3 in this case probabebly wil have to revise its decision! Tosk Albanian code was in ISO 639-2 alb ... "als" was already used for alemannic a longe time - in all language versions of Wikipedia "als" (with exception of the alemannic version itself which correctly uses "gsw" is used as the code for alemannic (including the redirection for interwiki-links ...), and there is only a Babel stone "als" in the English version but no stone "gsw". Deleting of the category User als deprives the alemannic community in the English Wikipedia to contact each other on the one side, and on the other side also is for no use for the albanic community which uses an other code in Wikipedia ... Perhaps we should observe here better the rule "no rule without exception" ... Or than we need help to build up all the necessary gsw-stones as fast as possible DidiWeidmann (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Over time, I've become more supportive of the position that this case should constitute an exception in the language user category system, and I wouldn't delete Category:User als-N if it was created now. As for Babel ... I would suggest that you post a note at Wikipedia talk:Babel, where editors who are more knowledgeable about Babel templates than I could help you. The administrator who closed the 22 August 2007 discussion (User:After Midnight) is currently on break, but he might still respond if you leave a note at his talk page. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Subportals of current events MfD
A discussing about several of the Current events subportals has been opened at Miscellany for deletion. You are invited to participate in discussing the fate of these subportals --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Design and construct
I see you reverted my edits at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Design and construct. It used to be we always noted that rules were generally applied and also noted exceptions exist, but I concede it may be that that has passed out of fashion. I'll also point out though, that to my eye there's strong consensus on the mailing list that seems to counter the strong consensus people affirm exists at WP:UCFD. In my mind it all adds up to there being no clear consensus on when and how categories do foster collaboration. It'd be nice if our guidance could reflect that, but I'm at a loss as to how to present that. All the best, Hiding T 23:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Afrobarometer edit
Hi. It was my first time editing Wikipedia, so I didn't know about explaining the change. In any case, while the information was sourced, the source is wrong. You can see from our website (www.afrobarometer.org), that the Afrobarometer works in 20 countries, and has three Core Partners, now based in in Benin, Ghana and South Africa, but it is not "based" in any one city or country.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.10.69.223 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back
I wandered back into UCFD, and it was deserted; both you and Jc37 were on unannounced wikibreaks. Glad to see yours wasn't permanent.  Horologium  (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I came back yesterday to start a new article and have been semi-active since. I see you've commented in a few UCFDs these past days ... are you thinking about returning to your regular level of participation there? – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got over it. (grin)  Horologium  (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome! :) It'll be nice to see you back in the midst of things, and I get the impression that things have cooled down a little since December. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am glad to see you back as well. UCFD was getting boring as the only person there the past week. There was a stretch of almost 5 days of no edits! Now we just need Jc37 back... VegaDark (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ...And he's back! :) Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (Incidentally, I can see from some of the posts at UCFD today that my impression that "things have cooled down" may not be accurate. Oh, well.)
 * Yeah, back just in time for another round of "delete that religion". You know, I really hate POINT nominations, which is the only thing preventing me from voting to delete; it's an obvious bad faith nomination, and the nominator's pissy response to my comment on his user talk page (about the needless snark in his delete recommendation on another cat) reminded me why I drew back for a while. The religion UCFD should've been speedy closed with the other two. Oy.  Horologium  (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm no longer sure whether speedy closing the discussion would cut short what is likely to be a drawn-out and unproductive thread full of disagreement and accusations, or whether it would simply transfer that thread from WP:UCFD to WP:DRV and some talk pages. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen you around
in a while. Hope everything is ok. You know how to contact me if you want to chat. --Kbdank71 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here. Ping me if you'd like to talk. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both (and to the others above : )
 * I already responded somewhat on Kbdank's talk page, but the short of it is that I suppose I'm back for the duration : )
 * (And I'm thrilled to see Horolgium back as well : )
 * I hope you're all having a great day : ) - jc37 10:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good to hear. Incidentally, I noticed that I missed the "Wikipedians by location" discussion; if you don't mind my asking, are you planning to renominate them in a while or are you thinking of another approach? Black Falcon (Talk) 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Renominate with a (hopefully) clearer nom, based on what we've learned so far, in an effort to continue to attempt to determine consensus : )


 * I think that there was at least a consensus to keep "in" and "from". Either as separate cats, or as a merged cat stating "in or from". I think that separate cats is more likely to find continued consensus, and plan to nominate based on that.


 * In short: Delete all "X Wikipedians", with an edit summary (by the bot making the changes) suggesting each Wikipedian is welcome to categorise by either the "in" or "from" standard. Else Merge/Rename all to "in" or "from", as appropriate. I'd welcome some suggestions as to the exact wording of the edit summary, since we have a length restriction, and part of it needs to be the link to the archive.


 * The previous closer suggested we wait for awhile, but I guess I didn't see the "disruption" that he seemed to. I'd welcome your insight.


 * That said, I think I should probably wait until the rather thinly veiled POINT noms by ASE and co. are completed, since I think there's a decent chance that they will be at least somewhat disruptive, and attempting a large group nom while that's going on is probably not the best of ideas.


 * Did I miss anything? : ) - jc37 00:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That would make sense, since there's liable to be much overlap in the use of the location and ethnicity/nationality categories. For instance, it's likely that most "Canadian Wikipedians" are "in Canada" and/or "from Canada". As for the wording of the edit summary, I'm not quite sure how it'd be possible to fit in every bit of information. The link to the archive itself will be quite long ... unless a shortcut to that particular archive is created and used (e.g. WP:UCFD/A/February 2008 or something similar). – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Harassment" page
Hello. I did post my opinion on the discussion page. I know its a silly page I made out of boredom, but the thing really got to me was a non-administrator with a vandalism and edit war history sent a note on my talk page and threatened to delete it. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme


 * Are you referring to User:RogueNinja? If so, then there may be a misunderstanding, as his note on your talk page was a notification rather than a notice of deletion (as a non-administrator, s/he does not have the technical ability to delete the page). Please let me know if I've overlooked something. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was referring to that user. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme


 * Also, history of vandalism and edit warring? Since when?  RogueNinja talk  08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just saw all of that on your talk page. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme


 * I'm glad that you've resolved any misunderstanding. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Working Group login
Hi Black Falcon, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've logged in and changed my password. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Barneca 2
Very well said. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Incidentally, I find it interesting that you initially opposed his first failed RfA but later switched to support and then co-nominated him; my single encounter with Barneca (that I can remember off-hand) involved a disagreement in a deletion discussion, but the way that he handled himself and the quality of his comments left a positive impression. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
  .: RFA thanks :.

Archiving
I've been absent the past two days and was able to log on only for a few minutes yesterday. Thanks for taking care of it; I'll update the topical index. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. And also, congrats (dubious honour?) on your nomination for being an observer over the new Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. I'd have offered to help if I had known "observer" was an option : ) - jc37 20:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the "observer" role was invented only 2-3 days before the working group actually started its activities, so it caught quite a few people by surprise... :) Black Falcon (Talk) 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Updated. I think the index page may need further subdivision at this time ... some of the sections (e.g. "Wikipedians who like/dislike" and "Unsorted") are starting to become bloated and some (e.g. "not-based" categories) are missing. I'll do a little sorting later today. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please Help - Problem with user Blotto Adrift
Hi, User Blotto adrift does not follow wiki policy. He has been warned several times but contuines to change pages to his own edits. For example a ruling was made that he was in conflict of interest on the Whitby Public Library but he has ignored the warning and keeps editing the page. I fixed it today but he changed it back. Can you please fix it and warn him about policy. If you take a look at his talk page he has been warned in the past.

Thank you for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.51.121 (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to respond to this. I believe that this is the same IP editor who has been vandalizing my user page (and others) for some time.  It all relates to Trenton, Ontario.  The article s/he is referring to was written last spring and all issues were dealt with at that time.  Blotto adrift (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Account was blocked for 24 hours by Jayron32. (By the way, how can construction be "scheduled to begin in 2007 or 2008" given that 2007 has already passed?) – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA
Having said during my RfA that I would like to help close XfDs, I find myself getting a bit lost while wading through all the material on how to do that. If I'm just going to close CfD for the moment, what should I read after the general CfD guidelines for everyone? Where do I find closing templates? Any help would be appreciated. Doczilla RAWR! 06:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The primary guidelines relevant to closing CFDs are Categorization, Overcategorization, and Naming conventions (categories). Most category discussions are covered by one or more of these three, but there are also more specialised guidelines regarding categorisation of people, categorisation by gender, race and sexuality, and the use of categories, lists and series boxes.


 * The actual process for closing CFDs, including links to the closing templates, is outlined at Deletion process (also at Category deletion policy, but the two pages mostly overlap). If a category is kept, you can use either Cfd result or Oldcfdfull to note the result on the category's talk page.


 * I know that you've participated in many CFDs and are familiar with the process, so I apologise if the links above and my comments are too elementary. If there's any specific information or help I can provide, please do let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that was simple enough. I had worried that I'd overlooked some step during my reading on it, but I guess not. Somehow it seemed like there would be some step I hadn't anticipated and some other template to go with it. Your response was reassuring, though, before I actually implemented the procedure. AWB was a simple semi-automated way to depopulate the category. How about a fully automated method? Do you use a bot? Thanks, Doczilla  RAWR! 07:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a few other minor pages in Category:Wikipedia categorization, but that's about it. I don't have either a bot or AWB (I should probably stop procrastinating about installing it...), so I generally request depopulating, renaming, and merging at the "working" page. It's generally faster than manual depopulation and it also guarantees an automatic edit summary linking to the CFD daily log (as here), which is something I sometimes forget. Black Falcon (Talk) 08:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, AWB is definitely worth getting. It has saved me a ton of work. Doczilla  RAWR! 08:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just did a run (mostly so that I could test out the interface) and I love it! ... This will save me so much time with all of the minor tasks that I often do (portal maintenance, CFD mass nominations - tagging and tag removal). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)