User talk:Falcon Kirtaran/Archive04

Closing AFDs
How on earth did you find FreeEMS as a keep? its unsourced, unreleased so breaches CRYSTAL and there are two policy based deletion comments. The keeping side have COIs and have not come up with sources. I'll be revertingy you and reviewing your closes today. please also stop editing old afds. We have a bot for that and its irritating to have the page keep coming back to the watchlists. Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack! I didn't know you had a bot for that, and if you do, I can see how letting it do its work might make your life easier.  As for the AfD, I was closing it on the basis of the discussion, rather than on the basis of what I thought personally; I was thinking of closing it with no consensus.  Notability was at least asserted, if not cited.  While most of the people there wanted to keep the article, I found (obviously much like you) that most of their comments had to be discounted, but what remained still at least appeared to dispute the deletion in my opinion, and with only one person besides the nominator speaking to deletion in such a large discussion, I wasn't sure consensus had been established to delete it.  It's also worth noting that the verifiability of the article was not really in dispute, and WP:CRYSTAL is not (contrary to popular opinion) a blanket policy against including anything that is in the future.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)Ok, I have deleted FreeEMS. You may appreciate some feedback on the other closes.
 * Articles_for_deletion/Emochila. If we do this properly this should have been a keep not a no-consensus because the AFD was on notability and sources were provided that met the criteria. Note that users changed opinions and arged to keep during the discussion. No harm done so i have left it
 * Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Lawrence_(trademark). obviously correct
 * Articles_for_deletion/Terror_Titans_(2nd_nomination) as a non-admin you shouldn't have touched this with a bargepole as the policy clearly supports deletion so keeping this was a far from clear outcome. I'm going to leave it as it is to see how the participants of the discussion react to the close.
 * Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Jays2 Ok
 * Articles_for_deletion/Dayton_Hobbs Fine.
 * What the above says to me is that you should be more cautious closing AFDs and avoid less then clear cut or contentious ones. In particular you need to make sure that you do not resort to headcount instead of assessing headcount against policy. That means one really good deletion argument should outweigh arguments to keep based on assertion or non-policy reasons and vice versa. I'm happy to give advice and answer any questions you may have over other closes. Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Falcon, Just picking up on your comment above. Verifiability means that all of the information in an article must be verifiable through decent reliable sources. Since the article was not independently sourced it was not verifiable. Are you confusing verifibility with confirming it exists? Also, if you are not sure that there is a consensus to delete then this means that this is not a straightforward clear cut close and, as a non-admin, you shouldn't do it. Spartaz Humbug! 07:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're probably right in saying that I sometimes need to give less weight to vote counts because it isn't a vote, but in actuality I rarely even tally the votes, preferring instead to weigh the arguments to determine consensus (as I do when judging high school debates, for instance). Per Terror Titans, I read the policy cited moments ago and it did not in fact obviously support deletion at all, which is why I closed it the way I did.  I'm not sure my not being an admin disqualifies me from closing debates which are not obvious and clear-cut even to the most casual observer (so much as that I should avoid closing debates when I don't understand the outcome), but I think it's reasonable to cite that I ought to do it within policy and according to consensus.  WP:NAC leads me to the conclusion that it is neither recommended nor prohibited for non-administrators to close such debates.  I'm also well aware of the differences between verifiability, veracity, and existence, and saw the existence of it pointed out in the deletion debate.  I do appreciate your comments; thank you again.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you really get consensus when closing AFDs. I'm going out now but will try and give you some more feedback this evening. Spartaz Humbug! 09:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I await elaboration. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dayton Hobbs
Under what criteria of WP:NAC did you close this debate early?  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That of seeing it at WP:OAFD and forgetting to note the timestamps, apparently. However, on reviewing it again, I still see consensus.  As you seem to want it to remain relisted, though, I'm happy to oblige, but I don't see this going anywhere other than keep.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 02:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkback
Replied at my talk. Washburn mav (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: AfD nominations
I don't know how else to tell you that there is nothing new on them, that each article is a rephrasing and retooling of the information in the list of episodes, thus nothing meaningful in the content. They are actually notable, I suppose, but there is nothing in them.  Oc t  ane  [ improve me? ] 25.08.08 0552 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talkpage. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited
I am fully aware of WP:NOTINHERITED. What were you referring to, exactly? Thanks sparkl!sm hey! 08:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your comment on your talkpage. Thank you!  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Articles for deletion/Redspotgames
Hi. :) The timestamp indicates that the close was performed just a few minutes after the relist. So I believe the debate was still listed in the August 19 log when I was reading that log, and I must have missed your relist note when I actually clicked the AfD link to close it. Anyway, the reason that article was deleted is that the article was at AfD for over five days with no keep opinion, which means it could have been deleted through WP:PROD as well. Unless potential controversy is perceived, a relist is generally unnecessary. In fact, I'd have left the debate open had I seen the relist note, but now that it is closed, I think it should remain that way. We're all just trying to reduce the backlog. :) Thanks for your work relisting debates and clearing the backlogs. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all; personally, I would have advocated delete were I involved in that debate. Yay clearing up the backlog (we're still back at Aug 17!).  Mostly I just wonder if I'm clearing out the backlog correctly.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Prod
I meant my edit as a clarification of my delete comment. I agreed with your comment, hence I was adding my reason for delete and adding the clarification. All the best. Verbal  chat  09:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aah, thank you for the clarification. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frame injection
Hi there. I saw that you closed Articles for deletion/Frame injection as keep. I'm curious as to why - there was my delete opinion, one person who outright said keep, and one person who said the article was only a dictionary definition. I think the discussion should be relisted, and would be interested to hear your opinion. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 09:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You listed it as making no assertion of notability and having POV problems. The latter is a cleanup issue unless the article could never be anything but POV.  The former is absolutely a deletion issue, but it certainly seems notable enough to me and someone did assert this.  However, the consensus here is admittedly very marginal, and so I am happy to relist it.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bridget Irish
Hi, Falcon Kirtaran! Would you mind revisiting the closure you did for Articles for deletion/Bridget Irish? You closed saying "No consensus", though there are 2 !votes to delete (plus my nom) and only one !vote to keep. Furthermore, the comment to keep cites two sources, both of which are either local and/or not WP:RS. Let me know what you think and if you believe there's some strong reason that counters the delete arguments that maybe I'm missing? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you use the notation !vote; I did not make a decision on this by counting names. The page absolutely has some problems (what on AfD doesn't, usually?).  The first of these is that it is fairly undeveloped, and so doesn't quite fall into what we expect to see here yet.  However, the edit history does not indicate it is a vanity page at all, and so that point falls.  Rwiggum also pointed out that there was no substantial coverage, however this was refuted by the keep !vote.  Additionally, the weak delete !vote points out a google search which, while not establishing notability in and of itself, made part of a case for it.  Whpq showed us two sources, the first of which is pretty definitely nontrivial coverage, outside of a local newspaper; these sources may not be able to speak authoritatively on World War 2, but even the most cursory look at them shows that they are allowed to pontificate on matters of art.  They are commercially-published media, not blogs or other personal websites, and so I think they definitely fall within our (relatively loose, in these matters) guidelines about reliable sources.  I closed it no consensus because, while the case for keep lacked more than one champion, it fairly clearly developed the subject's claim to notability.  I could not close it keep because of a lack of consensus, but given the circumstance above, I don't think it would have served much purpose to relist it.  If you strongly disagree with me, however, relisting it is absolutely a possibility.  Let me know what you think.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My objection is that the refs that Whpq provided are:
 * The Weekly Volcano, which fails RS since it's a weekly arts "alternative" paper that doesn't have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (IMO). At the very least, it's questionable.  The paper is based in Lakewood, a suburb of Seattle/Tacoma.
 * The Stranger, a more reliable paper to be sure, but barely a two-sentence mention in an article that was about much more than just her. Furthermore, that paper is also a Seattle-based paper.  But it is quite definitely not "nontrivial coverage, outside of a local newspaper", like you said.
 * So your comment that "this was refuted by the keep !vote" doesn't seem strong - my original statement was that she is a local artist and fails WP:CREATIVE by not having any national coverage. Do you still feel the artist somehow passes notability? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly don't want to make that decision (that would be pretty inappropriate as the person closing the debate), and so I will reserve whether I think personally that she is notable or not. If the sources are indeed so contentious, I think it's probably better to relist it; I will add a comment there specifically requesting comment on the provided sources and we shall see what comes of the refutation.  Note, however, that having national coverage is far from the only criterion; any number of others at WP:MUSIC and WP:CREATIVE will suffice to claim notability.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Falcon Kirtaran - I appreciate the chance to re-evaluate the article. Re-listing is probably a good idea. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Kalam
Hello - I'm working on the page for the Kalam cosmological argument and there's a huge section called criticisms. It's more than 10000 words long and reads mostly like a debate. In fact, the page has a warning that it reads like a debate and like a encyclopedia entry. So, I'm paring it down to a short paragraph but it keeps getting reverted and I'm getting messages from you about vandalism.

Can you help me out with this? Theowarner (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talkpage. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Theowarner (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry... one last question. I would like to do a huge edit. Removing this massive section entirely. Am going to get in trouble if I do it again? Theowarner (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not. If you leave an edit summary, and your new text didn't add words and phrases that are usually vandalism, RC patrol and cluebot will probably leave you alone.  We try our level best to not harrass people like you; I hope we didn't make you nervous about doing much-needed work.  Make sure to use edit summaries, though.  We're looking for blatant vandalism, mostly.  --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Aneeling by short circuit
I actually see it as not explaining what it actually is and not explaining clearly what it is. It is also not notable but there is not a criteria for SD for that.Yousou (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I just started New pages patrolling in the last few days with the tool called Twinkle. I just thought that G1 suited it and since twinkle doesn't have a Bot notable: Other, I thought it suited it well. I am not deleting stuff randomly, I have a good look at the article. I'm not the type of person who wants to go through the trouble of taking it through AFD.Yousou (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I didn't try to stretch CSD, That is what I actually thought G1 was. I am new at this. Please, I don't know the fine boundaries between AFD and CSD apart from AFD is a process for deleting something that can be useful in a time costing way, and CSD is a way to delete articles that do not have any notability whatsoever,Pure vandalism,etc in a fast and easy way. I am new to creating the AFD process. All I have done is add my opinions in the discussions. I apologize for any inconvenience that I may have caused.Yousou (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

About Apsyeoxic
Hi, Falcon Kirtaran!

Thanks for your message, and thanks for listing it at AfD. An intriguing case. As you have already pointed out, all the Ghits for the word are all dated after the article's creation by a user who made a single contribution and them disappeared. No doubt it will be deleted, but it certainly had some kind of interest as a hoax that lasted a five full years.

Thanks again,

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No trouble at all. I am amazed it lasted that long.  We can't catch everything on patrol, I suppose.  --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

An AfD debate
Hi falcon sir, your act is correct but it seems to be not proper as wikipedia is encyclopedia which includes knowledge of past and present world. Many railfans are very curious to know about The train which used to run at some time. The reference link is also states the existence of the train. I am not going to remove the nomination mark. Just have a look on the article. Thanks. Regards from Anas Wikindia24x7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikindia24x7 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I put it up for discussion. That it exists is not sufficient, but I am curious as to whether anyone can prove it notable.  --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hence Proved
The page you have nominated as non notable has been proved notable by more than half dozen people. 117.98.66.117 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)]

regarding your request for notability on the Mary Rice Hopkins article
I have done a bit of additional work to the Mary Rice Hopkins article and wanted to verify if you feel the notability guidelines are sufficiently met to remove the notability tag from the top of the article. Thanks! ForgetfulDoryFish (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Another wikipedian that had put other tags on the page confirmed that none of the tags were needed anymore. thank you! ForgetfulDoryFish (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay. I've commented on the article talkpage.  --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Redspotgames unlock request
Currently redspotgames has a new article at RedSpotGames, it was nominated for AFD twice and was kept. I would like to move the article to redspotgames if you could please unlock it.

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Amazing Grace acapella.ogg
Can you fix up the sourcing for File:Amazing Grace acapella.ogg? It's been nominated for deletion as being unsourced. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Help needed
Can you help me to copy-edit Jayne Mansfield? The article has good information, but the copy is horrible. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Gigablast
Hi. You voted at Articles for deletion/Gigablast. Please visit Articles for deletion/Gigablast (2nd nomination) and cast your vote. Thank you! Cheers, &mdash;Unforgettableid (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)