User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 8

DYK nomination of Mill Mountain Zoo
Nomination looks good, Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Plunket Greene
He's not an operatic baritone, so I have reverted your edit. He sang in opera no more than once or twice and immediately gave it up for his concert career. Eebahgum (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for correcting it. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that was my mistake! --Kleinzach (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was about a thousand articles, so only 1-2 error reports so far (this one and Max Meili, which seems to have been resolved) is very low... Black Falcon (Talk) 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it went very well. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha! I see you are keeping yourselves busy! I am about to revert Elena Gerhardt too, as she did just study a role or two, but her career was all Lieder. Will keep you informed if I find others!! Best, Eebahgum (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually she did sing in the Leipzig Opera (at least according to the article) . . . Black Falcon is really the guru here, you can put opera-related corrections on my talk page. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoshone (Snake River sternwheeler)
thanks for the good word, what's astounding about this is that it wasn't a rubber raft but a big steamboat.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about boats, but even to me it seems an amazing feat to navigate a 41m-long vessel through Hells Canyon (based on what I've read about the course of the Snake River in that area). Black Falcon (Talk) 04:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request
I started doing it manually, but I see that it will take quite a while manually. Presuming you have such tools (which I "think" you do?) would you be willing to add/replace the cats for the pages listed here to be Category:Lists of userboxes, the name(s) after the initial "Userboxes" for the alpha sort?

For example, Userboxes/Sports/Football/American would have the cat: (with or without the "/", at your option, just as long as it's consistant : )

Note that there are a few pages which aren't lists. If you can selectively avoid them, fine, if not, I'll be happy to fix those (remove the new list cat) manually, after-the-fact (as there are far fewer of those).

Thanks in advance. - jc37 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm online for only a few moments right now, but I'll take a look at this when I'm back (in about 6 hours). At first glance, this looks like something that shouldn't be too hard to do with AWB. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you : )
 * Also, I've been cleaning up some (rarely if ever to be used) redirects. Userboxes/Food/Chinese_Food now redirects to User:Mizunoryu/Userboxes/Chinese Food (a subpage of the userbox creator). Would you be willing to also "repair" these as well? (So that the redirect may also be deleted.) - jc37 23:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, these are both things that I can do with AWB. It's nighttime right now where I am, but I can do this in the morning (at about 17:00 UTC). Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Repairing tranclusions - done. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool : )
 * Found another that needs doing: these are links to WP:BOX. Would you please change them to WP:UBOX . BOX should probably be deleted, and then made a shortcut to Sandbox. (We want people to go practice there : )
 * Thanks again for all your help : ) - jc37 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this what you had in mind for the category? (Aside from various guideline subpages that are transcluded on Userboxes and a number of redirects, there are two pages that I didn't edit: Userboxes/Gallery and Userboxes/Large/Licencing.) Black Falcon (Talk) 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes! : )
 * I'd comment that "Gallery" is also transcluded, but you caught it anyway : )
 * I've been fairly hard at work removing quite a bit of stuff that weren't either lists pages, or transclusions. At one point, it seems that everyone involved in the "Userbox debate" had created their own personal shortcut. I've managed to orphan most of them. (Most were 10 links or less.) So hopefully that helped with the process.
 * Anyway thanks again : ) - jc37 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (To hopefully reduce confusion) - Related to the above is this discussion. He's attempting to implement Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_6. - jc37 01:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow... I never knew there was such a mess with userboxes. A few titles are obviously redundant (e.g. Wikipedia userboxes, Wikipedian userboxes) and I'm not sure how to interpret Category:Original Wikipedian userboxes (to what does "original" refer?). Kudos to you for trying to make sense of it. :) If there's something I can do (with or without AWB) to help the reorganisation, please let me know.


 * With regard to WP:BOX, are you sure it should be orphaned? It's not an entirely implausible shortcut for Userboxes (though, as you note, there is an alternate target)... Black Falcon (Talk) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Koavf, and please feel free to join in. (I should note something that I didn't notice at first: Koavf is not an admin. And though we allow non-admin closures, they shouldn't be any with delete results, and this one did. I was intending on asking Kbdank71 to finallise the close, since he initially offered, once this ReOrg was done, but you (or any other admin, for that matter) are welcome to as well. In addition, in going over the user's closes, while they're doing decently, I think they could possibly use a bit of mild coaching at times, or at least watching. So please feel free to keep an eye out.)


 * As for BOX, yes, my intention is to immediately redirect it to Sandbox as soon as the redirects are fixed. (This has been done innumerable times. WP:EA is just one example of this.) I had considered not having it redirect anywhere, since it can refer to so many things. But all things being equal, the sandbox should have priority.


 * Oh, and if you'd like to have some fun, check out my deletion log to see how many redirects that Userboxes used to have. (This doesn't include the dozen, more or less, that it still has : ) - jc37 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll pitch in if I can (I'll have to see how much of the close has already been implemented). As for WP:BOX, I noticed that some of the incoming links seem to be caused by repeated transclusion of a single page (e.g. User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User UBX Maniac - check the edit history). I'll try to manually identify and tweak these and then update the other incoming links using AWB. What would you suggest as an edit summary for the AWB run: something like "repairing redirect in preparation for retargeting to Wikipedia:Sandbox"?


 * I checked your deletion log and ... yikes! Were these all created by different people? And why was a shortcut with an ellipsis ("WP:USER...") ever created? :) Black Falcon (Talk) 23:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BOX to UBOX (or UBX, if you prefer) is just "dab link" or "dab links" (depending on if the page has one or more to be changed). We're not actually repairing the redirect (that's something else altogether, and you probably don't want to get involved with those... depending on the prior usage, those can be LOTS of work...)


 * I'm not sure if I understand (yet) what you're describing about the repeated transclusions, but I'll check them out next : )


 * And the shortcuts were created mostly during the great userbox debates. I'm still trying to decide what should be done (if anything) with User:Box. - jc37 02:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * After looking over this, and seeing only 5 links, one of which is the target page, and one of which is this page (!), UBOX probably should be gone as well. It looks like WP:UBX is the clear "winner" for usage. (Though, perhaps the best answer is to just replace the redirect with Userboxes...) - jc37 03:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And I see what you mean about transclusion. Ouch. - jc37 04:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like a bunch are versions of: - jc37 04:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (de-dent) And found a User:Boxes, as well. (I'm glad you're offline now, else I'd probably be driving you nuts with all these notes : ) - jc37 04:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think all the transclusions are done de-cache-ing : ) - jc37 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Box made me chuckle, but I lean toward deletion since the page seems to have served whatever purpose it had; it is now obsolete. (The same applies to User:Boxes.) ... I'll start on the links now. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed about 50 links so far, and am wondering whether there's a bot that could do the rest... Many of the pages are quite large and it takes AWB a long time to load them (I even had to restart the program twice). Incidentally, most of the uses of WP:BOX seem to be from mid-2007 or before, although there were a few uses as late as February of this year. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch. I know Kbdank has a bot, but I'm not sure what it's "cleared" for.
 * What "hurts" is that most of the pages are likely links on a userpage with a horde of userboxes. (I keep finding examples of Userboxes in the top of userbox columns.)
 * It's too bad that we can't just open "edit this page" before having to view the page. then you could change your preferences to not show the page as default when editing.
 * What's your thought? - jc37 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That could work... Since the change is not a complex one that would require review, I could just have AWB load the edit window rather than a full preview of the page. I'll make the change and try the AWB run with those preferences. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm currently doing the final run. Would you retarget WP:BOX to the sandbox? I think that might make it more clear to users what exactly the edit summary of "dab link" means... Black Falcon (Talk) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did. And added the link to the Sandbox page, realising too later that that header is transcluded, so then I "undid" that edit. In addition, I was reverted in the redirect change, as noted here. I guess the links should be fixed first, to prevent further confusion... - jc37 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough... There are about 150 remaining. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. The remaining incoming links are ones that are intended for Sandbox (e.g. User talk:Kliu1), are about the redirect itself (e.g. User talk:AuburnPilot), or could not be fixed by AWB. Anyway, I think it's safe now to retarget the redirect. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It took some searching, but I found the stragglers and fixed those links as well : )
 * Redirect retargeted.
 * That was quite a bit of work. Very nice job : ) - jc37 01:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

John Roderick (correspondent)
I have added this article into the rotation of WP:DYKs at Portal:Journalism. If you know of any other journalism-related articles that were highlighted at T:DYK, please let me know. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry
While I'm staying neutral to the discussion, I'd like to note that you didn't tag (or list) Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese ancestry, though you use that cat as an example. And Category:Wikipedians of Chinese Canadian heritage would also seem to be fall within the boundaries of your nomination. - jc37 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops... Thanks for pointing those out. :) I'll tag both and add them to the nomination. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Backwards Title

 * You should read the rulesa first ok before leaving me a message casue it would be nice of someone would do that.  Demon Hunter Rules  Kate Beckinsale Contribs 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks
Thank you for the Barnstar, that was very nice of you. - jc37 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

deleting my contributions to lake restoration wiki-site
Hi, you just told me you were going to delete my article on eutrophic water bodies. This is the article I wanted to contribute for the professionals of the community in the Wiki lake project community. I am authorized to use anything from www.aquaticrestorationsllc.com. I am Jack mosel, Its' owner.

JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moseljack (talk • contribs) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While you may own the website, the page from which the material was copied (see here) indicates that the copyright to the text (it looks like an abstract of a scholarly paper) is owned by Robert L. Laing. Unless the material has been freely licensed by the copyright-holder, it cannot be copied to Wikipedia in full. For more details, you can consult Copyrights. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy
Hi there. That revert was actually the contribution of banned editor, User:Amorrow. Just FYI ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of sockpuppets... Thanks for letting me know, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's only some of them. We don't generally mark them any more. Let me know if he comes back, okay? Jimmy banned that guy himself, and he is extremely unwelcome here. Thanks again ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Magic powers
Love to hear how it's deleted with no entry in the deletion log : ) - jc37 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Check this out
 * I've heard that it's a standard feature in the next release of Sysop 2.0... ; ) Black Falcon (Talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted it (no, it doesn't show up in my deletion log). There is a problem with logging that causes this to happen on occasion (blocks and any other logged actions as well, I believe).  It has happened to me 3 times ever to my knowledge, first about a year ago when I first became admin. It is a known bug that I believe (or at least hope) is being worked on, although apparently with slow progress. VegaDark (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
Please see this. This section is cited almost exclusively by a report of a case that is still in process in Australia. Couple of ethnic Tamil men were being charged for connection with LTTE and duping people thinking of aiding Tsunami into funding LTTE. The problem is that these are allegation and no court ruling has been made. Since the defense denies that they are members of LTTE or funding for them I believe that it is not suitable in the LTTE article. To me this could be seen as a violation of WP:BLP. Can you comment on this at the article talk page hereWatchdogb (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll have a look. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please share your thoughts regarding Nitraven's comments at WT:SLR and WT:SLR? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have commented on WT:SLR. However, I do not see any new development at WT:SLR. Am I missing something ? Watchdogb (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm happy that the "local villagers" issue seems to have been resolved. As for WT:SLR, I was referring to Nitraven's post of "03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)" and the subsequent discussion in the section at WT:SLR. The section immediately below this one is also directly related to the issue. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have replied at WT:SLR. Thanks for working out the problem WT:SLR. Much thanks to you ! Watchdogb (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment on the talk page of the LTTE article. I have raised another question on the article talk page about a related concern. Your expert comment would be greatly appreciated. Watchdogb (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ranjan Wijeratne
I will look at this later today. It's embarrassing to say that I've written on the relationship between terror and some useful terminology in nuclear strategy, but, until I have more coffee, I can't remember where I did so. Let me, therefore, share some definitions that I think might be very helpful in categorizing attacks. They are from Herman Kahn's On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios. If they prove useful, it occurs to me that the idea of applying them to terrorism may be worth having as an essay somewhere. Clearly, there is original synthesis here, but perhaps a consensus can be established that it is a useful way to organize facts.

The three relevant types deal with counterforce attacks, where the principal target is military.


 * Counterforce with avoidance accepts a greater risk of not destroying the target, to reduce risk to civilians (i.e., countervalue). This, of course, is more practical when one side has precision-guided weapons. There is an increasing amount of writing that examines the Japanese kamikaze as some of the first precision-guided weapons, which only engaged military targets, and, by extension, a suicide bomber that uses the smallest possible bomb and tries to get next to the target is arguably using this type of attack.


 * Straight counterforce defines an attack that has the maximum chance of destroying the target, without particular concern for civilian casuaties.


 * Counterforce with bonus may or may not accept a greater risk of failing to destroy the target, but specifically tries to increase civilian casualties. In nuclear warfare, this usually took the form of using a larger explosion, perhaps aiming the weapon at a position between a military target and a civilian area, with a blast large enough to hit both.

The WWII assassination (not everyone calls it that) of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was by military aircraft attacking other military aircraft, over the open sea. It's hard to do much more in the way of avoiding, although, for example, one of the passengers was the fleet medical officer, who might have been considered a noncombatant.

Hiroshima is arguable. Some call it pure countervalue. It's relatively unknown that the aiming point for the bomb was a landmark only slightly offset from Hiroshima Castle, which was the command post for the defense of southern Japan -- the first area where an Allied invasion would have landed. I tend to think that counterforce with bonus is closer to the point. Nagasaki was a little closer to unmodified counterforce, as the targets were factories surrounded by hills that deflected some of the blast away from the main city.

Anyway, see what you think of these models, which is the way I will approach the problem. Incidentally, there is a discussion of how to deal with POV in articles at User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5, where your thoughts would be welcome. The Sri Lanka project seems to be the best in Wikipedia in working out POV problems. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you want responses here or on the article page? I have some preliminary thoughts, although, unfortunately, they raise more questions. Patterns of Global Terrorism seems to make quite a few assumptions.


 * From that source, "In March 1991, the LTTE returned to urban terrorism with the car-bomb assassination of Deputy Defense Minister Ranjan Wijeratne in Colombo. Scores of innocent bystanders were killed or injured." I'd want to know more before I decided if this was terrorism. Were there any other ways to attack him? Was the car bomb detonated at a time and place where large civilian casualties should have been expected, and was that placement deliberate? Was the bomb itself at all directional -- explosions won't be completely directional, but, assuming the bomb-makers knew the techniques (e.g., Misznay-Schardin effect), one could put more force into the street and less to the sides and rear.


 * The source also says "A second car-bomb attack in June devastated the government's Military Operations Headquarters, again taking many civilian lives." Again, not enough detail. Were the civilians working in the headquarters, which would make them a legitimate target, or were they outside the building and not reasonably associated with it? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Anywhere would be fine... With regard to the details of the attack, the most informative reliable source seems to be this BBC report, which notes that the attack took place during the "morning rush hour", suggesting that civilian casualties could have been expected. I've not been able to find any details about the planning or execution of the attack.


 * Kahn's typology of counterforce attacks is most informative and could, I think, inform the discussion. Based on the information available, the 2 March 1991 bombing would seem to be an example of straight counterforce or, if one considers the LTTE's history of attacks against civilian targets in Colombo, counterforce with bonus. Of course, lacking proper details about the attack itself, it's hard to make a clear classification.


 * I will take a look at the userspace discussion later today—from a brief review just now, I gained the impression that there is ample material there that could be applied to a variety of conflicts and content disputes. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
I know you made this change (among others) as a result of the CfD. Not questioning the outcome, but a question on what next the MidWest category was made out of a compromise when one editor didn't think the state categories shoudl exist. However we still have at least Category:Children's museums in California Category:Children's museums in New York and Category:Children's museums in New York City (the latter of which was just re-populated via another CfD discussion). Are those going away now as well? I ask because I firmly believe Category:Children's museums in the United States is far too broad especially when the rest of the museums are categorized. But I don't want to create the categories and still go round and round with CfDs, especially since in this case I thought the nom's desire was an upmerge. Can you clarify? THanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 16:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The nominator's desire in the April 13 CFD was only that the contents of the regional subcategories for New England and the Midwest be moved back into Category:Children's museums in the United States; the nomination did not extend to any state categories. The state categories themselves, especially those that contain more than just one or two articles, need not be upmerged.


 * There is some disagreement about when a category for an individual state is justified, but I think that Vegaswikian's advice is mostly reflective of the current compromise: "If there are several from one state, you can create a state category. Once a reasonable number of states have categories, then you can add the others since it is clear that there is a series." So, a category for Indiana, which would contain only one article at this time, is probably premature. However, a category for Texas could be justified, since there are currently two articles about children's museums in Texas (Children's Museum of Houston and The Grace Museum). I hope that helps. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It did, and when I went further through my watchlist I realized what had been done. Some seem to have returned to a home but others like Kohl McCormick StoryBus appear homeless. Should I create a category for them? As we work through the Children's museums (including the vast majority that are not categorized into even the broad cats) there will ideally be cats for most states since the membership of ACM shows there are many more museums than currently exist on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Category:Children's museums in Illinois currently exists, I've added the article to that category. Later today, I'll do a quick sweep through the ACM list to try to find any articles that are not currently within the Children's museums in the United States category tree. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you're help -- we're working on it at WP:MUSEUMS as well, I just wanted to make sure none got lost TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, I've been only been able to find one that had not been categorised: Discovery Gateway, which I've placed in the main US category. If I encounter any others, I'll be sure to recategorise them as necessary. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Myst Franchise Pages
Thank you for your time regarding my undeletion requests. These articles will be very helpful while working on improvements to the Myst articles. Please feel free to keep track of my progress on my user page. Thanks again! -- OranL (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Play N Trade logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Play N Trade logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB concerns
Would you please check the recent contributions history of User:Koavf. See also User talk:Koavf, where I've left a few questions.

I think that this is an enthusiastic editor who started to cross the line to disruption, and may have done so quite a while ago, but I'm just now seeing the extent of the potential damage.

Am I missing something here? I would strongly appreciate your thoughts/insight. - jc37 18:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll just post here to keep the thread intact. Reading through his talk page and archive, this isn't the first problem someone has had with his editing.  I distinctly remember he closed some CFD's as a non-admin, and also depopulated some categories while the CFD was ongoing.  It would appear that he is trying to be helpful, and not be disruptive on purpose.  That said, I don't remember reading any policy that states good-intentioned disruption is ok.  Not sure what to do.  Don't want to drive someone away who could be an asset to the project, but I also don't want to have someone follow him around to make sure his editing is ok.  --Kbdank71 19:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Review Jc37 has politely asked me to refrain from using AWB until I get more feedback and I am honoring that request. In the meantime, I'll review the user manual and await your response. By the way, I authored this as you wrote your response above. Again, please let me know what you would like from me. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, while I've found several arbitration and various WP:AN (and sub-board) discussions/resolutions concerning such tools I don't see much actually "codified" anywhere. WP:AWB has a skeleton of some rules, and WP:BOT more addresses the code itself than the usage of the code. Please let me know if you find even an essay concerning this. - jc37 19:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ecx2) With regard to removal of categories that haven't been deleted, I didn't notice any other such edits except on Template:User Greek. As for these two edits, I would guess that they were null edits done to remove the pages from a deleted category. (Of course, the edit summaries should have been changed.) I don't think it's a case of disruption (and the comment above strongly reinforces that impression), but rather perhaps a lack of attention on some edits... Black Falcon (Talk) 19:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, since we're all here... What would you (plural) suggest? - jc37 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In my experience, the likelihood of errors with AWB is significantly increased when multiple tasks (e.g. "apply general fixes", "remove category") are performed at once, unless every edit is carefully checked. If the range of functions carried out by AWB on a particular run is limited to just category removal or replacement, much less manual oversight is required.


 * Since Koavf has an interest in CFD and UCFD, my suggestion would be for him to remain mindful of the category deletion policy (in particular, that discussions should rarely be closed before 5 days have elapsed) and the guidelines for non-admin closes, and just to use a little more care with AWB runs (or to carry out fewer tasks on any given run).


 * Incidentally, I noticed that you asked Koavf to use more descriptive edit summaries (see here) when changing categories, and this series of edits suggests that the advice was taken and incorporated. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (De-dent) - (Was waiting for Kbdank, but he can answer/comment at his leisure : )
 * Well, from what I can tell, three editors (who also happen to be admins, and who have regular experience at closing discussions, aa well as with dealing with categories as a result of such discussions), have concerns with your (Koavf's) edits, and not just AWB usage.
 * I support the analysis and remedies by Black Falcon above.
 * If you need help with appropriate wording for certain kinds of edit summaries, ask either one of these editors (or me, I suppose). They both operate such tools, and I would easily implicitly trust their judgement in this (and their usage of the tools, of course).
 * You may also want to read over: Edit summary legend.
 * One point that I'd like to also remind you of (noted on the page that Black Falcon already pointed you to) is that non-admins should not close discussions with results of "delete". That and perhaps (noting that this is merely a suggestion) you might want to hold off on closing discussions for a bit. Instead, read over them over, and ask questions to one of us three (or any other admin who regularly closes discussions). Kbdank was greatly helpful to me with this before I became an admin. (If you ask nicely he may even coach you : )
 * I also appreciate that you're taking this in the vein in which it's being offered.
 * And I do hope this helps. - jc37 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks As I think you understand, I am receptive to constructive criticism and I try to not make the same twice - e.g. after being informed of the procedure for closing CfDs, I have not closed any more. If you need to communicate anything else to me, please don't hesitate to post to my talk, e-mail, etc. As I am not watching this page and it appears that we have a rough understanding of my good intentions and decreasing incompetence, I won't likely see any further responses. Again, should something critical come up, please inform me - otherwise, I'll just take this as a learning lesson. Onwards and upwards. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I too have had concerns about Koavf; no doubt those who've reviewed his talk page archive will have probably seen my comments there. (1) Koavf continues to close speedy rename CfD proposals, despite my best efforts to explain why I think it's best for admins to do this. In closing them, he manually migrates the contents and then sets up a soft-redirect; normally the old category would be deleted, which I feel is preferable. This is discussed in the CfD guidelines, which I pointed him to, but after doing so I see he has continued this practice. This is not the first issue about categories that it has been difficult to bring Koavf around to following policy — (2) I had a heck of a time convincing him that CfD in general was the way to go in renaming categories, rather than manually migrating articles to a new category and then asking for the old one to be speedily deleted. (3) In the middle of CfDs, he has been known to create the proposed category and migrate some or all of the contents of the old category, thus pre-empting the CfD and making it very hard for users to see what state the category was in at the time of nomination. Anyway, I am not an admin, and I realise this entire conversation/issue is winding down, but thought you might be interested in my input anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? It is my understanding that it does not take an administrator to close/de-list a speedy rename on WP:CfD. After waiting 48 hours, I migrated uncontested moves from one category to another and I've left the contested ones for other users to discuss. Is that against the rules as well? If I did the exact same thing, but I was an administrator, would that be fine? I realize that a non-admin is not to close a discussion that is for deletion (again, thanks to my fellow editor above - this is a policy by which I have abided since he notified me), I did not realize that a non-admin cannot de-list a category that is intended to be moved to a new name due to the speedy criteria as well... If this is the case could someone explain to me the rationale? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From the standpoint of wiki-principle, speedy renaming of a category by a non-admin should not be an issue. It is only due to a technical feature of the MediaWiki software (categories cannot be moved; instead, they must be deleted and their contents relocated) that it may be one. While converting an old category into a category redirect is one option of dealing with this technical restriction, this is not common practice. I do not know of any specific guideline or policy that addresses category redirects, but they're generally only set up when there are many incoming links to the title or there is large likelihood of confusion. The only real guidance regarding the use of category redirects I could find is at Redirect and Template talk:Category redirect. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My only concern was the fact that the old categories were not being deleted, not any other "rules-based" reason. When a category is renamed, the default seems to be that the old category is deleted, not redirected. I view this somewhat analogous to a situation where a category is being deleted from CfD. But lately all of the ones going through speedy have been redirected, not deleted, which may lead to the old category being populated by the creator if they are unaware of the rename. I think it's always good to have a mis-named category appear as a redlink to clue in editors after they add it that "something has changed" since they created the category and they need to look into it. If they see no redlink, they will not investigate further. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a concern of mine as well, which I mentioned on his talk page and I haven't seen him do it since. In general, I think most category redirects, both soft and hard, are pretty useless, so my position is that category redirects should almost never be created. I have noticed couple concerning things other than that, but Koavf does seem to be improving.  My main concern is that he has removed categories from the speedy section at UCFD a couple times, when those should in fact be archived along with the regular nominations and not simply deleted.  Also, there were a couple speedy nominations he made a week or two ago at UCFD that he started, then simply made the change himself before further input, and removed the speedy categories (which to my knowlege still have not been archived properly, although possibly unnecessary at this point).  The change seemed fairly uncontroversial so I simply attributed it to being bold, but in that case a UCFD nomination probably should have never been made. Overall I haven't seen anything to be too concerned about other than the edit Jc37 mentions and some misleading edit summaries, as long as Koavf listens to everything mentioned above, there shouldn't have to be any further issues. I do appreciate the work he has done at the UCFD working page to create target categories and facilitate depopulation of the deleted categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The redirects for non-user categories are still being made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that edit was made just minutes after the issue of category redirects was raised, so it's possible that Justin simply didn't notice the comment here. In any case, this seems to be a case where a category redirect is not needed (no incoming links), and I've speedily deleted it. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes; what I meant was they are still being made days after I brought it up on his talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I've left a note on Justin's talk page asking him to check on the comments here (in case he does not have this page watchlisted). Black Falcon (Talk) 07:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, yesterday was a little hectic. I don't think there is anything else I can add that hasn't been said already.  Our concerns have been voiced and responded to, there are enough eyes on his edits to catch any mistakes quickly, and he seems open to criticism and learning.  I did want to let him know to be very careful when editing user pages, especially when removing redlinked categories and when using "general fixes" in AWB, but a few users have already spoken to him.  --Kbdank71 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Category redirects My assumption in creating category redirects is if someone created Category:X once, someone else is likely to create it again. By making Category:X a redirect to Category:Y, you can ensure that the content is put in the correct category because a bot comes along to clean out category redirects every so often. If you delete Category:X after migrating everything to Category:Y and someone recreates Category:X later on, you will have to rely on others happening upon X and Y and figuring out there was a CfD, etc. Category redirects are useful in that regard. Some of the category redirects should not have been made so those were deleted and I have not recreated those kinds of category redirects, but (for instance) Category:Myanmar should have a redirect to Category:Burma or vice versa depending on where the main article is. If you think a particular category should not be redirected, then I have no objection to the original being deleted if it is not likely to be recreated and repopulated. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cat redirects are useful in the case of Myanmar and Burma, but to leave a redirect simply because someone created a category that got renamed, no. That's not a good assumption to make.  There is simply no point to keeping these around on the off-chance that it might get recreated, because for the most part, they don't.  --Kbdank71 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In most cases, the deletion log (which is visible to anyone who tries to recreate a deleted category) is an adequate deterrent against recreation. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That and it makes the category not be a redlink, which is a whole other can of worms... - jc37 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Found another example of concern. You (Koavf) merely removed the category, instead of replacing it with the new category name.
 * In addition (back to the edit summary topic - though this edit was weeks ago) we usually link to wherever the final "resting place" of the XfD will be located, not just the generic XfD page.
 * Everyone has different ways of doing this, for me it's:
 * per 14 Mar WP:UCFD
 * It's just clearer and more communicative. Hope this helps. - jc37 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, When going back in their history to find more edits that day, I've discovered that they've made over 5000 (yes that's thousand) edits in the last dozen days. Not necessarily a bad thing, just worth mentioning. - jc37 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just now I closed out some speedy CfDs and listed them for deletion (please see my contributions.) Let me know if this is an acceptable method. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll clear out the listed categories and will ask Kbdank71, who's significantly more experienced with WP:CFD than I, to comment. I don't know whether Categories for discussion/Working/Manual is a watched page; if it isn't, requests might linger for long periods of time. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as you follow the speedy criteria (wait two days, no opposition, etc, etc), that should be ok. I have WP:CFD/W/M on my watchlist, so they won't sit there too long.  I do appreciate the link to the diff (with speedies, it's hard to make sure what's being listed at CFD/W/M isn't just vandalism).  --Kbdank71 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. Translation request
Hello Black Falcon. Last two sentences: "He was the director of Northern Mozambique Railways between 1993 and 1995, and then executive director of the same company and in the same zone, between 1995 and 2077, when he was then made executive administrator of the Northern Mozambique Railways within the Mozambique Ports and Railways company. He is a member of the Fighters of the National Liberation Struggle's National Committee, having gone through the political-military preparation in Tunduru, in 1973." Indeed, the National Committee can be translated in several different forms due to multiple word order variants and genitive applications, typical when translating Portuguese-English. The one above though I guess might be the best. I hope this helps. :-) Regards, Hús  ö  nd  12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Siegfried Kasche
Hi Black Falcon,

Thanks for the nom. It's flattering. I've created a few articles and it doesn't normally occur to me to put them forward for DYK. I suppose I should do so more often. Anyway, it's much appreciated and if I can help you with any articles etc please let me know. I'd be glad to. Best wishes, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Winston's Hiccup - I'd be delighted to put the article forward to WikiProject WikiWorld. I wasn't aware of their existence until now, sorry to say.... As an aside, it's a good article about a story that got me into trouble with User:Wetman on Talk:Winston%27s_Hiccup... He/She (as far as I can tell) didn't get the idea that the article is about what was said to have happened, rather than the actual truth. Ah well. C'est la vie.

Meanwhile, I've heard that the Democratic Party nom for the Presidency is going to be decided by 'super delegates' (better than the ordinary ones) at their forthcoming convention; when we finally get around to appointing 'super admins' (better than the ordinary ones), I'll be sure to put your name at the top of the pile... ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition nomination
Hey, thanks, Black Falcon, of the above article for DYK. I had already put a nomination forward (see this) that somehow gotten deleted {see here). I re-instated my earlier listing which I believe has more punch, as well as an image.  Thanks again, Madman (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom for Baguio Cathedral
Thanks for the nomination, highly appreciate it. Let me know if I could be of further help for the nomination. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for DYK nomination on Annette Elise Brown
Thanks for the DYK nomination on Annette Elise Brown and for copyediting.Mhjohns (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Content forks
Take a content fork to AFD and it'll be kept for notability. Trust me. Sceptre (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This AFD, for starters. Sceptre (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Might want to fix Content forking, then, as it states As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion. --Kbdank71 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "For starters". Content forks have been given free rein for a while, I'm afraid. And I tried merging, but I got reverted. Sceptre (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I go to Chester and shoot a Welshman, I'll still get arrested for murder. (and by that, I mean we shouldn't keep dead weight longer than necessary... and the content fork criterion is that) Sceptre (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 4 Mots sur un piano
Hi Black Falcon ! Thank you for having nominated "4 Mots sur un piano". I just hope it does not contain too many mistakes of grammar or spelling ! (English is not my native language) :) Regards, Europe22 (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply on my talk page and your copy-edit on "4 Mots sur un piano" ! Europe22 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the apology, but it is probably me who should apologise. I was probably over sensitive to DGG and probably also misread your agreement with him. Take it easy, Hiding T 17:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta, but I'm not sure it's my idea. It came up on talk, but per WP:CONSENSUS we are supposed to come to consensus through editing, and besides which it's currently getting missed in all the other stuff. Hiding T 18:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Can you please comment at the ongoing discussion here which is about users adding casualty figure of the Sri Lankan Army with source that is not highly regarded - violating WP:REDFLAG and further making synthesis claim violating WP:SYNTH. The edits are here. I have been revert warring with the parties, however, now that I have brought this to your attention I will not do so. With that being said I hope you can comment and help come to consensus.


 * Same problem being made at Battle of the Forward Defence Lines. Where a user is doing edits where the user is removing the fact tags, censoring wikipedia (by removing the CNN source and the claims made therein), removing tags and violating WP:SYNTH. Again I will stop the revert war now since you have been notified. Please comment on the article's talk page. Thanks again Watchdogb (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will take a look, but could you clarify what the essence of the dispute is on the Sri Lankan Civil War article? It's a bit hard to make sense of the edit history, what with edits being made by three different accounts (yourself, TheFEARgod, Top Gun). Black Falcon (Talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I want the casualty figure of the Sri Lankan Army to be only up until the 2001 because the citation that was directly from the military of sri lanka claims that these were the casualty figure until 2001. However, the other two editors want to add claim from a website, South Asian Terrorism portal, and synthesize that 1700 more soldiers have died since 2001. My main argument is that the casualty figure of a state force of a country is an exceptional claim and need exceptional sources to back these claims. As we know SATP is not an exceptional claim and therefore I want the casualty figure take off in accordance with WP:REDFLAG. Furthermore, another problem is that even SATP citation only covers the period from 2001 - 2007 and no claim is made of 2008. So for the users to claim that 1700 have died since 2001, they are indeed using other sources (like BBC and AFP) and adding the numbers up and are comming up with a final number. This violates WP:SYNTH. So the crux of the matter is that we only have one exceptional source to back up the exceptional claim until 2001. This is why I was trying to only have the casualty figure until 2001. Watchdogb (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The said user has repeatedly questioned my neutrality and claimed that I cannot edit wikipedia. The latest is here. Can you please discourage the user from such actions. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am currently working to formulate a response (and am also simulatenously editing another article), but I will post comments on both talk pages shortly. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry for the delay. An urgent family matter came up and I've had virtually no time for Wikipedia in the past three days. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've spent over an hour looking at the edit histories of the two articles and can't seem to determine what is and is not under dispute. From what you've written above, I would agree that adding up casualty figures from multiple news articles to arrive at a final figure amounts to original research. Such a calculation of casualties is not a matter of simple mathematics; such calculation does not factor in casualties that are not mentioned in any sources, nor can it account for overlaps between figures provided by different sources. I am happy to see that you are discussing the issue with Top Gun and, in this case, I think the best way for me to offer my perspective is to actually get involved in the sourcing and editing of the article. I will try to do that later today or tomorrow morning, depending on how much time I have. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for your thoughts and suggestion. I agree with your comment that it is better for you to edit and thus bring the problem to a close. Thanks again and please take your time. Watchdogb (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Romance-speaking states of Europe
Template:Romance-speaking states of Europe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.--DerRichter (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Insurgency
For Lebanon, I'll agree. For Saadah I reverted and added sources. For S. Thailand see Insurgency in Aceh, Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, Insurgency in Aceh, Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002-present) - like the "War in": War in Afghanistan, War in Abkhazia etc... I only know Iraqi insurgency for your X insurgency, and that's special because it's Iraqi -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * google numbers shouldn't be an argument, I see no rule that says everything should be X insurgency nor X wars. I don't think all should be renamed -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I must go off now. Please don't move the articles. I propose inviting more users to the discussion, maybe on the page insurgency? Regards,-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied here and began thinking in a different way. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 12:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium
—Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC).

Re: Germanic language
OK, you don't need to chase me up on that, I believe you! :) I've misunderstood or misread many XfDs too, no need to apologise. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Still at it
Seems Netmonger and Iwazaki are still at it, read this novel: []. Just ban them and be done with it. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

question about oldcfdfull
Please check my comment on creating a template only for user category discussions --Enric Naval (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what you are talking about
I have never edited a wikipedia entry. You might be thinking of someone else. I share a wireless connection at my college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.224.157 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct; my comment was directed to another person editing from a shared IP address. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Are blacks more intelligent?
Evidence:

http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/528/236/

--70.68.179.142 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on currentdisaster
It can be used for ANY event where official information should be relied on instead of Wikipedia. It's just a fancy workaround I made for for WP:NDA. ViperSnake151 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Koavf
I hesitate to bring this up again, but ...

More editors than just me are still encountering problems with Koavf's CFD behaviour. Honestly, through this all I've tried to be as clear (while remaining polite) as possible, but for some reason he's just not "getting" some things and he's doing the same types of things again and again. I feel a tad petty bringing it up over and over again with him, but it's to the point where I at least find it disruptive b/c I feel like I should "keep and eye on" him to make sure he's not doing anything off the wall. I imagine User:Rockfang may be feeling the same way.

By the way, I've copied this message to the other admins who joined in on the recent conversation on Koavf's talk page and above on your talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Box
This box, User:Motorrad-67/notice/AmEng was recently created and the same user placed it on a few articles. Is this kosher? Not really sure. Hooper (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't (kosher, that is). User subpages should not be linked from or transcluded within articles. Moreover, while article message boxes are an exception to the rule that there should be no disclaimers in articles, the exception applies only to message boxes that are intended to be temporary (that is, the message boxes highlight a particular issue that needs to be addressed; when the issue is addressed, the box should be removed). The disclaimer contained in User:Motorrad-67/notice/AmEng, however, is not intended to be a temporary one. I will revert the edits and leave a note on the user's talk page. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Verification needed
Hey Black Falcon I am wondering if you would verify a couple a couple of things in Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism. A user is refuting a couple of claims made in that article. That, however, seems to be a simple mis-interpretation of the situation. I got my claims from a book, and if you can verify, I will scan the pages of the book and have it sent to your email. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd be happy to try to help. Am I correct in assuming that you're referring to the dispute regarding the claim that the "Federal Party never asked for a separate state or even for self-determination"? If so, then a scan isn't necessary as I was able to find the text of pg. 83 of Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism by A. J. Wilson, which states: "Till 1974 the FP did not demand self-determination, let alone separate statehood."


 * On the one hand, that quote does clearly confirm the sentence in the article. On the other, the text of the resolution noted by Snowolfd4 clearly includes an indication of a desire for self-determination. That same source, however, also lists the "policy objectives ... contained in the constitution" of the Federal Party, and autonomy or independence are not among them.


 * My question, then, is this: According to the source, the resolution was moved by a Dr. E. M. V. Naganathan. Are the views expressed in the resolution those of Dr. Naganathan only or do they reflect the formal stance of the Federal Party? –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct in your claims. I think it is really a mis-understanding. I think that the resolution (or the speech that he gave) was his expressions only. The party adapted four policies that did not ask for a separate statehood or self-determination. Even today you probably seen politicians make comments that are clearly not the in the way of thinking of their party. Sometimes they even go against their parties core policies. In this case, this is just a speech and he could have done this purely for popularity purposes. Indeed to decide the desire of a political party (at least as a face value because anything else would be OR) one only needs to look at the core policies. Watchdogb (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm doing some research about the Federal Party to try to be able to offer a more informed opinion, and I'll try to post a response soon. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Take all the time you want. I appreciate the time your offering to help out. Thanks once again Watchdogb (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Bump. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is Arab citizen any better than Arab Israeli?
I answered your main question at the talk page, but because I have written quite a bit too much there I thought I'd answer your other query here!

So, why is Israeli Arab slightly worse? I understand why it would seem better, that the emphasis is on Arab identity. Thanks for your effort to come up with another option upon which we might all be able to agree. I suppose it's that, even as if emphasizes Arabness ultimately, the problem with the reverse is simply that it puts Israeliness first! With this issue of ordering, the emphasis is quite a subtle matter and sometimes varies, doesn't it? For instance, even though Jews in Germany were often very very connected with their Germanness, even more than their Jewishness, I've only heard "German Jew" never Jewish German.

To summarize again, as I said on the talk page, the reason for this repulsion to the term "Arab Israeli" is not hatred of Israelis. However, feelings are very very mixed and there is of course a great deal of anger and trauma. It is difficult to be called something that is associated with your internal displacement, the end of your national aspirations, dispossession from your house and lands, and isolation from the rest of your people, etc. There was a time that some took a "wait-and-see" attitude, and some might have accepted the term Israeli at the expense of Palestinian connections. But in the end, overall most Arabs in Israel did not feel that they were treated as Israelis. In turn many feel that to be called an Israeli Arab forces allegiance to Israel over their Palestinian brethren, that the term forces them to choose sides, prove loyalties.

Excuse me if I seem to repeat myself over-much. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I have responded to your comment(s) at the CFD discussion and have also amended my initial recommendation. Best, –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to template
Hello. Can you please cite the specific Wikipedia policy you are referencing regarding your recent change to the Christian music template? Thank you. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Categorization - sorry for not linking to the page in my edit summary. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Lianga
Hi. The article Ake Lianga has been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to comment, the discussion is here. Thanks. Aridd (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. I've offered my opinion at the AfD discussion. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I goofed.
I goofed and I'm in the process of fixing it. Very sorry for creating some confusion. Doczilla STOMP! 02:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Groundviews and Citizen Journalism links
Is there any reason you are deleting the links I place to Groundviews and related Citizen Journalism links in Sri Lanka? These are international award winning sites and offer, in the articles I have put them under, perspectives that will be useful to readers.

Sanjana Hattotuwa Editor, Groundviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yajitha (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles should generally contain only a few external links (see External links, #4), and the links they contain should generally be of high quality (see Reliable sources), informative to the reader, and appropriate to the scope of the article.


 * Reliability of sources: For the most part, "citizen journalism" sources are similar to blogs, and they are written with little or no independent oversight. Such links, as well as links that contain unverifiable personal research–which citizen journalism sources do–should generally be avoided.


 * Informative to the reader: One of the links (vikalpa) is not written in English, and so is of very limited use to readers of the English-language Wikipedia. The others, because they are essentially just blogs, are equally of little use in providing an encyclopedic (i.e. factual and neutral) treatment of the subjects.


 * Appropriate to the scope of the article: Four links on the subject of "citizen journalism in Sri Lanka" do not belong in an article that is intended to provide a general treatment of the Sri Lankan Civil War (a conflict spanning 25 years) in its entirety or one that is intended to provide a treatment of the condition and history of the Sri Lankan media (which has an even longer history extending well before independence in 1948). –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you know section at Portal:Africa
Hi, I have left a message at Portal talk:Africa which you might be interested in. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, -- Beloved Freak  13:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Africa
I was looking at this project and am curious as to whether or not it is still active? Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is active. About a dozen editors are actively involved in the project itself and a larger number are involved with Africa-related articles without being active at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa. The project's members also use/maintain Portal:Africa (talk page) and the Africa-related regional notice board. Are you considering joining? If so, we're always happy to have new members. Please let me know if there's anything with which I can help. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that a lot of the country projects seem to be marginally active. Would it be wise to tag them as historical? Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of them (about 40 or so) were created only a few months ago. Though the projects themselves sometimes see little activity, their admittedly few members are generally quite active. For instance, and –both highly active users–belong to most or all of the country projects. I myself belong to a few, as do numerous other members of the main Africa WikiProject. I'd suggest seeking broader input before tagging them as inactive. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is anyone going to object if I try to recruit more users and work on redesigning the main page?Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the main page of WikiProject Africa? If so, I'd say be bold and redesign away... (I find the current format to be rather cluttered and inefficient.) I also don't think anyone would object to efforts to recruit more members. By my estimate, Africa is the least-covered continent on Wikipedia (followed by South America), and probably the most significant reason for that is a lack of involved editors. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am going to make it bit closer to MILHIST. Is there a project barnstar already (If not, I will just design one)?Geoff Plourde (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a project barnstar: see Template:The AfricaProject Award. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:FootnotesSmall
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:FootnotesSmall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rockfang (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Jedd Marrero
Could you or whoever deleted the article undelte it? It was my brothers Birthday Gift, his Birthday is today, and I'd promise him I'd do it. Please? And if you do undelete it, please tell other people not to erase it. and sorry about VegaDark's edit thing. I thought he erased it. Please post it back. Thnx. —Mrsral 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the article was deleted twice. The record of the deletions, including the names of the editors who deleted the pages, is available here. Although you can technically ask them to undelete the article, they are unlikely to do so (in fact, they really shouldn't do it). Though it may be a nice idea for a birthday gift to post an online profile about your brother, Wikipedia is not a suitable venue for doing something like that. Also, since Wikipedia is one of the top-searched and -copied websites, it has a strict policy governing articles about living persons that is designed to protect the privacy and reputation of living people. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD closing
Thanks, I better go check the other ones I did today then... -- M P er el 02:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing those, now I know : ) -- M P er el 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
Hello Falcon!

Thanks for your attention and subsequent comments on the talk page of article polyclonal response. I found your comment very useful (not because they were positive), but as by your own confession you found the article understandable. As you must be aware, the article is on hold following a good article nomination.I have started a detailed discussion of each section of the article on its GA review page. I'd find it very useful if you'd add your comments as I am in a great dilemma whether to keep the glossary section in the article or not. I got the inspiration from a similar section in another article on 'chromatography.' There it actually served the purpose well. As I see you are an experienced Wikipedian, so there shouldn't be any problems in your reviewing the article, too. From what I understand is that for issues like verifiability, NPOV, stability and factual accuracy, people with knowledge of the field are required, but for other issues like article's fluency, intelligibility, comprehensiveness and summary-style (meaning if it is felt that the article contains too much unrequired information).

My major problem has been to strike a balance between adhering to WP:MOS, and also keeping the article intelligible. I suppose that balance has somewhat got tipped in favor of latter, but as I read the guidelines well, I realized that they are guidelines and not strict rules, and that for a justified cause (intelligibility of a fairly complicated concept0, an article can depart from that. The difference between this article and many others is that it is not a mere description of facts, say history of a certain war, or side effects of certain drug. I had read an article on subject called epistemology from Encyclopaedia Britannica some three years back. The page to which I am providing the link is shown only incompletely, but, somehow if you could gain access to the encyclopedia, I'd strongly recommend going through it. Partly, so that you'll get my point, but even otherwise, it's one of the most beautiful pieces of reasoning and assertion that I have come across, and you'll definitely enjoy reading it. The point of mentioning the Britannica article is that it (such an established encyclopedia) totally departed from the usual style employed in almost all its articles only so that a complicated concept could be explained well. Major part of the article was employed to discuss a situation—a pencil dipped in water at an angle appearing bent!

So, keeping these things in mind, I request you to contribute your views to the GA talk page, and help improve the article.

Regards.

 —Ketan Panchal  t aL K   10:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'd be happy to try to help.


 * I've read your comment above and your response to Dr. Cash at Talk:Polyclonal response/GA2, and I can understand your reason for introducing the "Explanation of difficult terms and concepts" section. In my opinion, the article is comphrensible to a layperson who is willing to click a few links (either article links or the "show" links of the templates). When I read it, I already knew the definitions of "pathogen", "host", "protein", "antibody", and had a vague idea of some of the other terms (for instance, I knew that peptides consisted of amino acids, but that was almost the entirety of my knowledge of the subject).


 * While the templates did help me to better understand the content of the article, I think the "Explanation" section could at least partly be replaced by in-text links and/or in-text explanation. The template helped me only because I clicked on the "show" links, and one could argue that an editor who is not willing to click a link to another article will not click the links to "show" the definitions contained in the templates. Then again, it's easier for a reader to read a single article than to jump back and forth between multiple ones.


 * I will try to offer a clearer and more detailed section-by-section response on the GA review subpage later today. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

wiki-pt
I really hope you will enjoy your stay on wiki-pt. Lechatjaune (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Thing About Jane Spring
Very nice cleanup! I'd be happy for that to appear in the mainspace, and it would get DYK'd if you nominated it. Just for future reference (though it's definitely not a problem), the plot summary doesn't have to be referenced because it's descriptive, so REF doesn't apply. But good work, and thanks for letting me know; it was a good read! Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  07:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi!

Thanks for the edits you made in the article polyclonal response. They will definitely be useful for the article. Regards.  —Ketan Panchal  t aL K   21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've also prepared comments for a few other sections (I've saved the comments in my text editor), which I'll post soon. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)