User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

This talk page archive covers the period 2007-04-01 to 2007-06-30.


Contents

My RfA

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

My RfA

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

invitation

You are invited to join the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. Please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Don't delay---the first 25 members will receive this beautfiul toaster  !!!

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

Kya: Dark Lineage

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

RfA

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

Iran War

I could use some help here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War--Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Trevor Loflin

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

Observation

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

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

Peer review, Tamilnet

Hi, I have asked for peer review of the above article [1] your input will be appreciatedRaveenS 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your useful comments. I've incorporated them all RaveenS 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred Rogers Fairchild

Certainly. >Radiant< 08:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Woop

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

 :) +Hexagon1 (t) 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sa'dah conflict

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

Mackensen's RFB

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

My post at User talk:Chidis

Obviously I didn't go through all of his edits..But several edits he made and I noticed were correct and though they were without proper citations, I believed those edits needed to be praised..Esp the one he made at the SL army article,saying Sinhalese were the first Asian people to defeat Portuguese in a battle, which is not only 100% true can be cited very easily..And let me take about figures he added to wikipedia..I am not in position to say all of those numbers are correct but some are certainly do,Such as 1500 LTTE cadres karuna took with him when he left LTTE..This actually came from Karuna's own words and I am sure we can find a reliable source for this..I don't know how many child soldiers LTTE recruited but this also has to be a big number,could be even more than 9000..So instead of reverting his edits, why didn't you ask him to back up his claims ?? May be he could have provided something for us given an opportunity. about this he should be definitely warned,sorry for not seeing it,obviously I can't follow all his edits in Wikipedia..finally, this can be either false or true..If these people had nothing to do with the LTTE , they might not have faced that fatal ending..May be security forces proved they were LTTE members,we never know,so instead of deleting it completely shouldn't we ask him to give citations ?? I mean there are worst articles with worst info, but still don't get deleted..There are blatant hoaxes in Wikipedia but no one even care to touch them..If you consider this, I don't think we can condemn this user for bad editing, at least he has not wasted our time by making blatantly POV articles and stupid(Sorry,there is no other words) templates..for vandalism we should warn him, for adding info without citations he does not deserve any warning..that is my thought on this..Iwazaki 会話。討論 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding info without citations doesn't deserve a warning unless the user has a prior history of vandalism (which Chidis' did at the time of RaveenS' warning). The fact that there are worse things on Wikipedia, and I should note that the edits by this user are one of the worst I've seen, is not an excuse for Chidis' behaviour. I don't dispute that some (maybe 5-10%) of his changes may have been acceptable, but the absolute majority were blatantly POV and pure vandalism. The obviousness of his vandalism, such as piping every link for LTTE to terrorist, his comment at human penis size, and deliberately introducing factual errors (changing 168 bombings to 1680 is just one example), does not leave me inclined to leave his edits and ask for citations. On the contrary, I think that taking such a weak stand against such obvious disruption would be counterproductive. If he wishes to do contribute constructively, he is still free to do so; he may reintroduce material that conforms to our policies on neutrality and attribution. I naturally wouldn't recommend warning a new user for adding unsourced material if it seemed it was made in good faith. However, in this case, Chidis' contributions history shows clear signs of the absence of good-faith attempts to improve articles. I deleted his statement that the "Sinhalese were the first Asian people to defeat Portuguese in a battle" for two reasons. First, I did not see it as overly relevant to an article on the Sri Lankan Army, at least in the way that he had added it to the article. Second, the fact of the statement being unsourced, combined with Chidis' prior history, made me inclined to delete the sentence before requesting proof from him. If the claim is true and verifiable, I have no objection to its reintroduction into the article as long as it is relevant to the topic and can be integrated into the text. Regarding the edit he made to Special Task Force, I'd say that one was the worst as he changed a direct quote from a reliable source to state something that the source contradicted. That the people may have had affiliation with the LTTE is not something for us to speculate on (to do so constitutes original research). I hope my lengthy comment clarifies why I acted as I did. -- Black Falcon 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Do you think I should be WP:BOLD and userfy the MPmg lists, or should I ask some more people? Henchman 2000 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that they were deleted. If I'm correct, then the deleting admin should probably be willing to userfy if you request it. If I'm wrong, could you please provide the link of the article you're referring to so that I can make a more informed judgment. Thanks, Black Falcon 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that if the articles are deleted, then whether the deleting admin does choose to userfy is entirely up to his or her discretion about whether he or she thinks you have a good reason for making the request. -- Black Falcon 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service, there is no reason those lists need to be in a user space. They were deleted: and putting them on a user space is just a form of ignoring the clear deletion of them from Wikipedia. RobJ1981 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Userfying them only for the purpose of keeping them in userpace is a violation of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. However, if Henchman 2000 can provide a convincing argument that he will be able to modify the content of the articles in order to reintroduce them into the article mainspace in a manner that addresses the concerns raised at the AFD (i.e., merging the revised content somewhere), then userfication should not be an issue. That's why I wrote that whether an admin grants a request to userfy is contingent on the proffering of a good justification that the content could be modified and at some point reintroduced. -- Black Falcon 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
So should I consult someone else or not? Henchman 2000 08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Question at my RfA

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

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

Diff

Here's the diff of my statement about the cricket articles :[2]. Go to the very bottom of the changes. It says "this is why I didn't speedy them. Thanks! --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion lists

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt

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

RFA?

I think you'd be a strong candidate at WP:RFA, and I think your involvement with deletion discussions would be enhanced if you had the tools. Would you like me to nominate you? YechielMan 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence in me. However, at the time, I have some personal matters to attend to, which I've been (probably not wisely) postponing. If you would consider nominating me in about a month, I'd happily accept. Thank you again, Black Falcon 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Great. When you're ready, if you remember, please leave me a note. YechielMan 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You will make a great admin RaveenS 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

PNC Template

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

My RfA

Hello Black Falcon, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

WP:N

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

Filmography TFDs

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

Prodding of articles created by User:Screechy111 (reply)

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

Something to work on

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

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

You helped choose Government as this week's WP:ACID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Government was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Diez2 00:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Postcodes in Australia page

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

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

Scientizzle RfA

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

My RfA

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

Cathy O'Brien nominated for deletion (again)

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

Re:List of India-related topics

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

List of Cities on the Great Lakes

Hi. You created the article List of Cities on the Great Lakes a few days ago with the edit summary "listifying category" ... that article is most redundant to Great Lakes#Important cities along the lakes. I was going to propose its deletion, but decided not to as the lists aren't entirely identical. In your opinion, is it worth merging the two? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the list can be improved to hold more information such as which lake the city is on, which state and country its on and etc. Perhaps population too. It may also be renamed to List of cities along the Great Lakes. Each city should ideally also contain a citation that it is on the Great Lakes. -- Cat chi? 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you, Black Falcon, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicO Talk

 Image:Admin mop.PNG

RfA comment

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

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

Um, well, warning, I guess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ooooohhhhh, you asked for it. I shall call down the lightning from the heavens to STRIKE YOU DOWN WHERE YOU STAND.
*waits*
*crickets chirp*
All-righty... back to the drawing board on that approach then. Maybe we should talk? :)
I guess I was a little pre-emptive with the warning thing, folks tend to enjoy edit-warring so much these days, I thought like "let's get ahead of the game a bit here" . What I'm basically trying to say is that if folks want to experiment with proposals for adminship, and they don't actually hurt anything, that'll be ok, right? :-)
--Kim Bruning 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC) *walks away muttering about people who stay seated*

Just dropping you a note

Thanks for your sharp eye in catching the copyvio on Kevin Downey, Jr..[3] While, yes, it was indeed a copyright violation, the article didn't need to be speedily deleted; all I had to do was revert back to the last edit before the copyvio was introduced.[4]

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

Prodding lists

Shame you didn't drop me a note, but mass afd nominations will not work. What we need to do is to prodd and afd them one by one, unfortunatly. I suggest prods, then afds. Let's not be too ambitious, if we prod/afd dozens this will steer somebody into defending them. Let's take a few per week, starting with prods, then afd if it is removed, one per day is good. After 2-3 weeks we should have all of them deleted, than we can start a mass afd again showing case by case they are junk... PS. I'd support also wikiprojectfying them, but in the mainspace they are junk making new editors waste time on updating them. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If we would go with projectify, than we should go to one project - perhaps something related to vandalism fighting in general. Otherwise not only we would have to ask hundreds of wikiprojects (some of which would ignore us), but some lists have no related wikiprojects... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
True, but honestly I don't have time to do it the proper way, so I guess I'll just drop the matter - other than deleting the few lists related to projects I am involved in (particulary Polish, as consensus to get rid of it was reached at WP:PWNB weeks ago).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Reconciliation Barnstar

The Sri Lanka Reconciliation Barnstar
For your merits in Sri Lanka reconciliation [5][6][7], the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation herewith presents you this Sri Lanka specific barnstar, which is the blossom of one of the world's most loved drinks.

To keep a cool head in one of the world's hottest conflicts deserves our highest respect! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Black Falcon, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New chemistry COTM

Hi Black Falcon, we made Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance our new Chemistry COTM. Thanks for updating the entry. I know you didn't vote, but if you're interested in helping, please pitch in. Thanks, Walkerma 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Prefecture_of_Fokida

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


Prefecture_of_Fokida

Would you mind merging the article that started? I don't do how do that. Neptunekh 02:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

== Prefecture_of_Fokida

Would you mind merging the article that started? I don't do how do that. Neptunekh ==


Would you mind merging the article that started? I don't do how do that. Neptunekh

== Prefecture_of_Fokida

Would you mind merging the article that started? I don't do how do that. Neptunekh ==


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

Project deletion

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

MFD archives

Could you please clarify your nomination. I'm not sure if you also want to delete the monthly archives you linked and you haven't explained how debates can be navigated when these daily logs are deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oops, never mind. You transcluded them. How are load times for those monthly pages? - Mgm|(talk) 10:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well-earned

The Working Man's Barnstar
For remarkable dedication and ingenuity in the performance of "wiki-gnome" tasks, and his many contributions to the smooth maintenance of the project, Black Falcon is awarded this Working Man's Barnstar! Xoloz 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)



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

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

Oh dear... I hope you didn't spend too long trying to decipher my name! A helpful paragraph from neologism should explain everything:
"In psychiatry, the term is used to describe the creation of words which only have meaning to the person who uses them. It is considered normal in children, but a symptom of thought disorder indicative of a psychotic mental illness such as schizophrenia in adults. Usage of neologisms may also be related to aphasia acquired after brain damage resulting from a stroke or head injury."
See, I'm just a lunatic! :) (Actually, in fairness to me, I don't attribute any meaning to the word... so, I'm probably not schizophrenic. Yet.)
Xolos is by far the best attempt at an explanation: a credit to your intellect and thoroughness! :) When pronounced, my name rhymes with Solos, the less-intellectual plural for the musical work performed by one person. I get that question occasionally, too, so I thought I'd answer in advance!
I stand at your service to heap praises on you whenever the proper hour arrives, in whatever manner you think best. Thank you for your marvelous efforts on the project's behalf. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

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

languages other than English

I must correct something I wrote in a recent discussion.

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

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

Certainly not inferior - just a lot harder to verify. However, I was wrong in my understanding of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English states that English language sources (or at least published translations) are preferable, but not that they are required.
Thank you that in spite of our difference of opinion, you assumed good faith. --Chriswaterguy talk 14:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree of course that English-language sources are generally preferable ... though I think the reason is not because foreign-language sources are harder to verify per se, but because there are fewer people on en.wikipedia that are able to verify them. In terms of the reliability of sources, which is what is relevant to proving notability, a source in one language ought to be just as good as a source in any other. Anyway, thanks for your message. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you Black Falcon, for voting on my RfA. Although it failed, I will try to improve in the ways pointed out to me, and maybe I will become an admin next time. If you have any comments, questions, etc., you know where to go. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

MFD Archiving stuff

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

Terrorist Attacks article

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

Response to 'Neutral'

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

appreciat

I am very gratified that so many people have understood the work I've been trying to do, and so so much confidence in me. I'm particularly grateful for your help during the discussion, and I'd be delighted to join with Xoloz . Considering the other one also, this seems like a good time. DGG 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I found it helpful to have previously constructed careful replies on the required and the usual supplementary questions, & I think it would help to see what you plan to say. DGG
Ready. Tell us when you're back & want to start. I hope whatever the problem may be turns out well.DGG 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A matter of interest

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

Help:Creating policy

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

Notable Assassinations (Sri Lanka)

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


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

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

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

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

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

Firefox

Have you tried using Firefox (the web browser)? It has spell checker feature. It checks for spelling as u type, as in MS Word. This feature is very useful when editing wikipedia. Just thought you might want to know.. :-) ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗPeace Talks 06:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiportal cleanup

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

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

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

My RfA

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

qys for RfA

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

I am an idiot

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

Wikiportal redirects

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

To clarify, I'm meaning things like Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Astronomy/Picture/2 May 2005, not the redirects that one would actually expect to be useful. - Bobet 20:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I figured they'd be pretty fast to get with popups. And if you do find some other more specific prefixes (like the ones you linked at my talkpage) where it could be really hard to come up with any use for the redirects, just leave a message and I'll get rid of those too. Thanks. - Bobet 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I deleted all the ones you linked, along with the associated talk page redirects. - Bobet 10:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Should be all gone now. Thanks. - Bobet 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Template to portal redirects

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

Gone again. - Bobet 12:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

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

My RFA

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

Ryuchi Matsuda

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

Advice...

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

Elysium

Hi mate

re your message to me, I don't think I did do anything wrong in Elysium did I? I just cleaned up a few duplicate references (from memory, Streetcar Named Desire was mentioned three or four times!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.30.111.27 (talk • contribs) 19:50, May 28, 2007.

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

No worries! You were very polite about it anyway. Chris

Regarding edits to ICasualties.org

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

New Utopia

You may want to see recent developments at New Utopia and Talk:New Utopia. --Iamunknown 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Adminship

Twice before I have looked on your talk page and noticed some editors offering to put you up for adminship, and I've also noticed you've declined both times. Consider this round three. I would like to be a co-nominator (one of, probably, several) for an adminship request for you. Are you ready? Mangojuicetalk 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikify Template

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

Support

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

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

Spelling reform article

hi blak. tuk me u wil tu find xis.

re: yor emal respons.

100% ugen. menz yr prite smort.

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

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

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

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

>Its my opinion that the Spelling Reform & English Spelling Reform articles are inteneded to discourage interest in the subject. It seems they were written, or at least modified, by somebody who is against the whole idea.

Generally, the articles are very tedious. Maybe this is an indirect result of the Wiki style and the fact that the whole subject of spelling is not exactly buxom babes on flying motorcycles, but it certainly will not keep your average grammer school student interested in persuing it after his report is turned in. Wether it is intentionally boring or not, the result is the same.

In the English section of the main Reform article, you will see that the 2nd half of it is clearly discouraging and concludes with a sentence & link refering to a parody of reform.

If someone were to click on the little link at the top of this section to get to the English Spelling Reform article, they will find only more discouragement:

Take a quick look at the WARNING boxes & notes in the English article. You will notice that the 1st 2 sentences have accuracy problem notes thrown in on very trivial issues, starting the reader off with a skeptical atttitude. The Reform Campaigns section has 3 big warning boxes in it. In contrast, the Obstacles and Criticisms sections, even tho the material is unsourced, has only the single [citation needed] which I added. The issues raised in these 2 sections are easily dismissed, yet you will find any refutations posted will be deleted within a few days.

The Spelling Reform Campaigns section gives only links to some proposals with practically nothing about them, but finds the space to include a Successes in spelling complication subsection! Following it with a list of 11 'successfully' simplified words is not likely to give anybody an idea that there is any life in the subject. And in case anybody might get their hopes up, the failed Tribune campaign concludes the article and is prefaced with 2 WARNING boxes.

To put some final nails in the coffin lid, the External Links section at the bottom includes at least 3 'humorous' webpages that basicly deride the idea of reform. At this point, I am suprised that my addition of a link to the Children of the Code site was not deleted.

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

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

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

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

Human Rights in Islam (book)

Hello. Just letting you know, I reverted your Redirection of Human Rights in Islam (book). What you did was actually delete the page. The page was up for discussion for merging, but you didn't merge, you deleted and then redirected the user to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Thank you. Fanra 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I received your reply. I was unaware of the difference between what you did and Deletion. Although the history of the page remains, it looked like deletion to me. Reading the page on merge, I see, "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary." Which is what you did. It was my fault for not knowing this. In the future, you might wish to say something in the discussion of the merge that you have gone ahead and merged and didn't put in the information. I assumed the discussion on the merge was still open.

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

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

New Utopia

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

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

Since his first attempt to obtain the financing for this project failed in 2000 after the SEC problem thousands of man hours have been invested in the project. A survey was conducted by the Principality on the area costing over $27,000 and hundreds of volunteer hours of post processing to obtain detailed maps of the region. [8]

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

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

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

When you see the work and personal funds that a lot of hard working honest people have put into this project you get very passionate about the project.

"please assume good faith" as was stated in my remarks on the discussion page good faith can not be clearly established. The entire article is slanted to the negative this bias quite obvious. If it is not deliberately injurious but still slanted and negative how is that objective? I must just be missing something. The edits seem purposely injuriously to the subjects of this article.

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

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

I might also add that the far more serious statement against BAC when they clearly violated the same security rule did not indicate that were a fraudulent enterprise.

Trivia templates

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

My RFA

You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified.

Regards, WilyD

RfC

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

User:GK

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

My RfA

Hello Black Falcon,

Thankyou for voting in my RfA. You will be pleased to know that it has been successful!! Meaning that I, Reedy Boy, am now an English Wikipedia Administrator.

It passed with a suprising 47/0/0, and I really am grateful of all your support, and I hope that I live up to your high expectations!

If there is anything I can do to help you out, please, do not hesitate to contact me!

Yours,
Reedy Boy 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cathay Camera Club

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

YechielMan's RFA

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

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

Excellent arguments...

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

Speedy tag WP:UR

I've removed the speedy tag from WP:UR because the redirect was valid, and I didn't understand why the request for deletion was being made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unusual requests was deleted on May 30. I tagged the redirect as a candidate for deletion under CSD R1 on May 31 and it was deleted the same day. An admin restored both the target page and the redirect on June 5, but apparently forgot to remove my speedy tag. See target log redirect log. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

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

Congratulations!

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

You're an Admin!

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes and good luck, -- Cecropia 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oray!
Oray!
Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a great job. Do get in touch if you ever have any questions you think I might be able to help with. WjBscribe 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congrats. Enjoy the moment for 20 seconds and then get your ass on the job! Pascal.Tesson 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, that's a big backlog but deletion is oh so quick and easy. Tip for the beginner: when deleting pages that are tagged with db, don't click on the delete tab. You get a much nicer automatic deletion summary by finding the sentence "This will alert administrators (.......) and any revisions of CSD before deletion." in the pink box and hitting the keyword deletion. Pascal.Tesson 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay!! Let's wheel war sometime! ··coelacan 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC) And I won't deny a hint of cynicism, so I'll just hope that it's both.

Oh, if you're not familiar with the term, see wikipedia:wheel war. I will make the first move, by speedy deleting Ramtha as an insalvageable BLP violation. You should then give me a three hour cool down block with a block summary of "Happy Birthday, Susan!" ··coelacan 07:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Pfft. If I knew you were going to be spamming thank messages for a 100% RfA, I might have abstained! –Pomte 06:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's not so bad. Some people like the notes. I was too lazy to spam for mine, but I considered it. In the end I opted for the path of least resistance. ··coelacan 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Woo, congrats! You'll do a great job, methinks G1ggy! Review me! 07:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congrads mate, do us proud. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Sincerest best wishes in this role. Pedro |  Chat  07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratuations, you'll make a fine admin - and yes, licking hot women is part of the job, you better get used to it fast! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, congratulations! As Ryan says, licking hot women is indeed part of the job, but there are fun bits too, you'll see. Take care mate :) Riana ⁂ 10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. Peacent 13:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. I meant it when I said that I've always enjoyed your contributions here. Don't leave that behind with your new responsibilities. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!?
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

RfA

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

Congratulations on your RfA

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

RfA

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

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

Conga Rats on your successful RFA! --Ozgod 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mr RfA...

Congratulations, and thanks for you kind words. Good luck with your new responsibilities. Cheers! hmwith[?] 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome for my support! :) Acalamari 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Congrats Man

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

Thank you...

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

User:Valusa

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

(Image:Tangeline.jpg)

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

Tangeline mistake

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

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

Hi!

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

You are welcome

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

My RFA

 Hello, Black Falcon/Archive 2, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton.

Septarian nodule

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

Recursion

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

I'm rather confident he will undo his closure ... in my experience, Tony is reasonable; he just has an intense dislike for process when it comes to biographies of living persons. If he adamantly refuses to undo his closure, there are three options: (1) start a new DRV discussion, which someone else may immediately close as "disruptive"; (2) start a request for comment against him, which I think is the least desirable outcome; (3) simply revert him. If he flat-out refuses to undo his closure ... I'm leaning toward the first or the third (in general I don't like admins reverting each other, but I think this was sufficiently out-of-process to justify that). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
So Tony is an admin? I wasn't sure and his logs weren't helpful (hasn't done anything admin related since October) and also thought he had them removed for some reason. I posted as such on his talk page. –– Lid(Talk) 18:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
What the ... you're right! He resigned adminship in October 2006 (see Wikipedia:Former administrators). Still, I'd like to wait a little longer to see if he'll undo the closure on his own. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

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

My RfA :)

Thank you, Black Falcon, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page.

Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Huge waste of time

Well, that was a huge waste of everyones time.

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

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

Blah, sorry about that, I'm just a bit frustrated is all. Disregard me :/ - Francis Tyers · 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. No problem, I can understand and appreciate that you posted a follow-up to your initial comment. I realise that by closing them differently, I left open the possibility of a deletion review charging that I did not evaluate them equally ... but, that's the point: I evaluated each discussion separately and closed it on that basis. As I noted in the Serbophobia AfD, there is no consensus that all "anti-X sentiment" articles are inherently invalid, so the AfD outcome for one article cannot directly extend over others. The fact that they were nominated separately, have different strengths and weaknesses, and received separated deletion debates also precludes any attempt to treat them all the same.
As regards your three points:
  1. If someone recreates "anti-Hungarian sentiment", it can always be renominated for deletion if the article is again an original synthesis of various facts/incidents.
  2. The Serbophobia article may be refilled with original research, but proneness to OR, POV, or vandalism are generally considered weak reasons to delete an article unless there is consensus that a valid article can't be written with what is there.
  3. I don't see a problem with renominating the articles in the future, though I'd advise to do either a bulk nomination – if the nomination rationale is the same for all articles and you want all articles to be considered together – or to tailor each nomination to its respective article.
Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination)

Hello Black Falcon, keeping in line with the policy for WP:DRV, I would very much like if you could, take a second look at the Article I nominated for AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination) . As this is my second nomination for this article, and having acted on the advice of the previous closing administrator,[9] , the final course of action open to me would appear to be WP:DRV. If you would, could you possibly outline the rational used in arriving at your determination. As outlined in the previous discussion, I felt I made every effort this time to offer a “good strong refutation”, of the arguments, and although the discussion did not generate the level I interest I had hoped for, (having been listed on both the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature ) I did not feel that this would have a negative affect, in fact quite the opposite. I look forward to hearing from you, thanking you in advance, Kind Regards, --Domer48 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be happy to provide my reasoning.
The basis of your nomination was that the book, in your view, was not notable. User:A1octopus agreed with you but used a standard of notability that, though certainly valid, is significantly stricter than the current wording at WP:BK: "internationally famous, on several best-seller lists, and/or a spark of major controversy in notable publications". User:Vintagekits also agreed, stating that "[t]he book itself is not notable". Though Vintagekits did not provide additional explanation, I presume s(he) mean that the book does not meet any of the criteria specified at WP:BK.
User:Paxse responded by (1) providing links to multiple reviews and (2) stating that the "book also meets the minimum threshold standards for WP:BK as it has an ISBN number and is cataloged by the National Library of Ireland". The latter is, of course, the bare minimum that that a book must satisfy to even be considered for inclusion, so I did not give it much weight. However, the presence of reviews does allow a case to be made that the book meets Criterion 1 of WP:BK, as was argued by User:Paxse and User:Kernel Saunters.
You challenged the ability of the reviews to establish notability on the basis that they were not reliable/were from commercial sites or provided only trivial coverage of the book. Regarding the former: WP:BK does not reject the use of sources from commercial sites as long as they are reliable and independent of the authors/publishers. What the notability guideline states, specifically, is that being listed "at online bookstores such as BarnesAndNoble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability". Regarding the latter: the triviality of coverage is something that can be debated and I feel that in this instance there was sufficient disagreement about it to prevent the reaching of a consensus to delete the article. As you noted, one of the defining features of Criterion 1 of WP:BK is that there must be "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary". However, you were unable to convince Paxse and Kernel Saunters that such information was not present. Indeed, the existence of the "Critical response" section suggests that the article already has grown beyond "a simple plot summary".
I will echo Herostratus' comment that the role of the closer is not so much to evaluate the article itself, but to determine whether there exists a policy-informed consensus to delete the article. That does not seem to me to be the case here. I would be happy to provide any further clarifications. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your considered reply. If I may make some points in relation to your rational, I would be much obliged. On your point about A1octopus, I would agree that it is a much stricter criteria, but I would also consider it to be of a much more encyclopaedic standard. In relation to Vintagekits contribution your right, during the first AfD they were much more detailed as seen here [10]. On the more substantive issue, I at not time questioned the reliability of sources as you suggest, but rather questioned there applicability under the criteria outlined and the "nonsubstantive detail treatment".[11] I addressed each one of the sources in turn, and at no time were the issues I raised addressed. In particular, as outlined in the criteria, these sources did not satisfy it at all. The “subject” [12] was reviewed in a “trivial”, [13] way and this point was quite frankly ignored. Did anyone read the reviews? There was no “analysis of the manner of treatment”,[14] in the reviews and in the criteria, this was considered “crucial”. I gave my analysis, and being the only one who read the book, I was in a position to compare it with other books of its genre. This book as outlined, is not notable, and there was not “sufficient disagreement”, as you suggest, since there was no discussion! Both parties at no time engaged in this part of the discussion. As to the books genre, it was intimated through the use of one particular source that the book could be considered a text book, and this again would be covered by the following criteria, [15]Thank you for you time, and would welcome any observations you may have, Kind Regards --Domer48 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to reply to each of your points in turn. A1octopus' standard may or may not be "much more encyclopaedic", but the role of the closer is to evaluate arguments in context of existing consensus-supported policies and guidelines. His comment revealed that the book did not meet his standard of notability, but said little about whether he thought the book failed the existing notability guideline for books. As regards Vintagekits' comment, this link seems to substantiate my initial assumption that "s(he) mean[t] that the book does not meet any of the criteria specified at WP:BK". So, her/his reasoning in the first AfD was essentially included in your argument in the second. In case you are wondering, I did not discount the comment for its brevity, but instead considered it a support of your nomination.
My comment that you questioned the reliability of the sources was based in my understanding of your statement that the New Statesman review was from a "commerical web site". However, as you note, the main direction of your argument was that the reviews provided only trivial coverage of the book. Despite whether you or I agree with Paxse and Kernel Saunters, I believe that these diffs illustrate that they expressed their disagreement with your evaluation of the coverage in the reviews as "trivial". Though I view Kernel Saunters' statement that "The reviews ... are in-depth and provide a wealth of information" to be an exaggeration, it seems equally unfair to state that the reviews provide only "nonsubstantive detail treatment", considering that the phrase refers to mere mentions of a book's title, author(s), publication date/place, price, and the like.
If my arguments convince you that my close was proper but you still think the article ought to be deleted, I would recommend that you consider renominating it after some time, assuming the article does not improve. I doubt that an immediate renomination would be useful in reaching a consensus; indeed, it may be frowned upon. On the other hand, if you do not think that the close was proper and believe that there was a consensus to delete the article, you may bring up the matter at deletion review.
If you have additional comments or questions regarding my closing rationale, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Black Falcon, thank you for again for your time and indulgence in relation to my concerns. Just two points of clarification on your understanding of my position, 1) In relation to my use of the term “commercial web site”, I am referring to Vendors, which are sites which sell and advertise books. 2) On the use of the term “nonsubstantive detail treatment"
Under the conditions outlined in the “Subject” criteria, you will of course notice that “other nonsubstantive detail treatment", means in addition to “mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings.” Where any of the sources checked against the criteria I have outlined, or are decisions based only on the content on the AfD page.
I noticed also that the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books) has changed [16] . Am I to understand that there is no difference between notable and reliable, as it may affect my reasoning. Thanks again, Kind Regards--Domer48 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I did briefly check the reviews prior to closing the AfD, but did so not to assess the reviews myself, but rather to assess the "keep" arguments based on them. I thought that there was enough information in the reviews to allow one to make the case that the book meets Criterion 1 of WP:BK (i.e., that their treatment of the subject is not wholly nonsubstantive) and thus did not discount the arguments for keeping the article, though I did discount the idea that the reviews "are in-depth and provide a wealth of information". So, in short, I looked at the reviews only to evaluate the arguments presented at the AfD and tried not to let my personal negative evaluation of the reviews get in the way.
My modification of WP:BK was intended to clarify the difference between notability and reliability. The concept of reliability relates to the credibility of information published in a given source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). The concept of notability relates to whether a topic is "worthy of note" and merits an article in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Notability). Content on Wikipedia should be supported by reliable sources, but the publishers of the sources themselves need not meet the notability guidelines. For instance, publications in almost all peer-reviewed academic journals are reliable; however, not all peer-reviewed academic journals are notable. I hope that clarifies the meaning of my edit. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Hungarian sentiment

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

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

Help

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

My recent RfA

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

Quick technical question, seeing as you are online...

Hi. First time I have ever done this, but I just blanked two user pages, on inappropriate content grounds - although I doubt that many would disagree with that ;O).

The question is: should I take this to WP:ANI to get the page histories removed? FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • (reply) Cheers. Just one of those situations I hadn't dealt with before. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • (and..)Oh, belated congratulations as well.. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How should I respond to User:SqlPac?

I nominated User:SqlPac's userboxes for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SqlPac. After a discussion, two of them were deleted and I withdrew the nomination on the other five. Now the user is threatening to nominate other userboxes that he considers inflammatory because he thinks I set a bad precedent. (Please see my talk page.) I want to ignore him, but I'm not sure if that's the best idea. What do you recommend? YechielMan 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yechiel. I would recommend disengaging – either via a lack of response or a short, neutral response – as the best course of action at this point. After reading his message and looking at his userpage, I doubt that he will actually nominate any of the "about 50 userboxes" he claims to have found. Even if he does, it shouldn't be much of a problem. If they are valid nominations, the userboxes will be deleted. If they are not, he can be cautioned not to use deletion processes to make a point. A comment about his incivility to you might be in order, but I also think it would only unnecessarily prolong the situation. I hope this helps. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Work

Headline text

Hey! Your the man. You really are making Wikipedia a better place, keep up the good work. And thats a really cool name! Holla Back yo! Signed: K to the fizzle

Zakspeed 861

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

my RFA

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

Zawraa template

Hi their. Well the template originally had the logo of the team next to the name as well, and it was used in the Iraqi football pages, but someone found some rule and declared it to be wrong of using the logo and the template. I dont know what to do now. Chaldean 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea go ahead, their is nothing I can do. Chaldean 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, are you a moderator? Chaldean 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok great, because I have been having a problem with the page Chaldean for quite some time now. Probably over a year worth of reverting randum IP address that is changing sourced statement. Can you please temperarly block non-registered users from editing the page? (having the same problem with Alqosh as well). Thanks. Chaldean 00:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Chess Club

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

Userfying lists

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

Black Falcon, thanks for giving a very thoughtful response and closure to the debate. I'm disappointed by the still large deletion, but I appreciate that you spent literally hours struggling with the issues. Although I did make a point with the "weather songs" example, that probably isn't my highest priority. On a whim I've written a new intro for the List of songs about divorce article based on a journal article dealing with the subject. If you recreate that page I'll add the into and start to cleanup/improve the sourcing of that list first.
I would be interested in having the remaining deleted pages userfied. I don't have a time-line for fixing them though, and will likely pick some battles and let go of others in the end. There are a few that I edited during the debate though I didn't mention them there. Deleted ones I recall are motorcycles, astrology, and criminals. I also see significant potential for disease, children, childhood, death, prostitution, and automobiles. (--That makes for an odd sentance read out of context.)
I'm not familiar with any hard rules on userfied articles (how long you may harbor them etc.), but I'll start to look at what ever you give me (assuming the text and edit histories can in fact be unearthed a good while later). Thanks again. -MrFizyx 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Stunt

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

Active user verification

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

List of songs about weather

What, you're surprised there's a question? I am very cognizant of the work that you did in closing this AFD however for this one list I think the no consensus closure warrants another look. This isn't a list of songs about weather. It's merely a list of songs that mention a weather phenomenon in the title. Given that "List of songs whose title..." lists have been uniformly deleted at AFD over the last couple of weeks, I hope you'll take anoher look at whether it's reasonable to delete this one as well. Otto4711 03:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. :) I was well aware that my closure might leave both sides unsatisfied, so I'm only pleasantly suprised that no one has seriously objected to it yet. The List of songs about weather embodies, I think, the very definition of a "list ... of loosely associated topics", so I am inclined toward its removal (at least as it currently stands). However, I also do not want to deviate from the principle of not immediately deleting those lists which either survived a previous AfD or which at least one editor recommended keeping. So please give me some time to consider it.
I will be userfying the deleted lists to subpages of User:MrFizyx per his request, who has stated that he will work on the lists, improving those he can and dropping (i.e., deleting) those he can't. Since it was he who specifically objected to the deletion of the weather-related songs list, I've asked whether he'd agree to have that one userfied as well. I think it would avoid an unnecessary AfD. I expect that he will agree and will inform you of his response and my subsequent action. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

whether there'll be weather

By the way, another editor has asked that List of songs about weather be included as one of the deleted/userfied pages. Would you agree to have it userfied as well? Since you were the only to (sort of) argue that it ought to be kept, I would feel comfortable modifying my closure if you don't object to its userfication. Please let me know. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Odd request, no one else addressed this article specifically in the debate. I do plan to improve that article. In the mainspace, others are more likely to help. I'll try to take critism such as Otto's above into consideration. Perhaps he can be more patient?
If I understand correctly, any significantly changed article can be moved back to the mainspace without a DRV since it is not the same as recreating deleted material... I'll leave it to you to make the call. I won't offer any objections or blessings. I think another AfD would only prove the nominator's impatience. As noted in the AfD, you may userfy any of these lists to User:MrFizyx/songs/List of songs about blah. Thanks, -MrFizyx 05:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Thank you

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

Seriously though, if you have any insights or advice that you've picked up in the process of learning the admin ropes, I would welcome them. No pressure though.--Kubigula (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

After a few sessions at CSD, I understand why they call it a mop. I appreciate your comments though - it's definitely worth remembering to keep finding things that engage you or you burn out.--Kubigula (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

List of films by gory death scene AfD

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

Possible unintended contradiction

In the edit you made here, you had the summary "the *deleting* admin should seek consensus; regardless of what one thinks about BLP deletions, this does *not* apply to all processes". However, the version you reverted to also says that this rule applies to all deletion processes -- just wondering what you really wanted to say? Silas Snider (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll get no argument on your stance from me (I wrote what I did just to clarify what was already there, not because I agree with it), however I think it would be advisable to wait and see what the final decision of the ArbCom is, instead of doing the whole unproductive back-and-forth thing on WP:BLP. Also, someone on the mailing list suggested that a notice should be put in MediaWiki:Watchdetails to the effect that WP:BLP is being drastically reinterpreted. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonfairfax (talk • contribs).

Template talk:Prod-nn

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

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

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

Wikipedians who are pilots

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

Wikipedia:Deletion policy

I think maybe there's a point that's being missed here. There are many BLP deletions that should not be recreated even if the first article was poor. This isn't a mandate not to create articles, its just a sanity check first to make sure there isn't something more behind the deletion than a contributor realizes. Shell babelfish 23:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea - I don't think these pages are being salted routinely now since that was historically used for pages recreated multiple times. Might be a good way to fix the issue, but I still don't think it hurts us to be more careful about BLP recreation Shell babelfish 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

delsort list Americas

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

ANI

I posted notice in ANI and no admin wants to touch it because it deals with an admin’s actions in the periphery but in reality it deals with the outcome of the action of the admin not the admin actions. It has to do with the continual harassment of me that has to stop. Any help will be appreciated. Taprobanus 12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't much that an admin can do now with the March diff. As far as a warning goes, Iwazaki was warned by Mel Etitis after making the post. If you feel that there is indeed "continual harassment" of you by Iwazaki, I can suggest one of three courses of action:
  1. Attempt to avoid conflict and report any future incidents to ANI or an administrator's (including mine) talk page;
  2. Request comment from other parties via Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts; or
  3. Start a Request for comment on him.
I'm not overly familiar with the history of interaction between Iwazaki and yourself, so I'm only presenting general advice and can't suggest any particular course of action. I may be able to say something more concrete if you provide specific and recent diffs. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon vandalism user

[17] Time to block him :) EliasAlucard|Talk 18:50 25 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Template: Trivia

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

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

Degeneration

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

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

Belated delivery of your cake :-)

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

Nominalist Wikipedians

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

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

Sabbatarian Wikipedians

Hi there. I see that you were the closing admin for the deletion of this user category. The discussion was rather limited to achieve consensus with only two editors participating. My argument, if I had known of the deletion debate, would have been that it has nothing to do with social networking, those of us who keep Shabbat simply do not edit during that day of the week— specifically in terms of collaboration, we won't reply to queries asked to us during that time. As not replying to someone for a day or so can get some people kind of worked up, it's nice if there's a reason you can point to. I'm not sure if this belongs in a deletion review or what, but I thought I'd address you first. By the way, Shabbat starts tonight, so I may not be able to reply to what you write right away. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Information about when one will not edit is probably better expressed as a userbox or a note on one's userpage than a category. My thinking is that no one will look through categories specifically to find out when editors are not editing. If you think the category is useful despite that, and given that only three editors (including the nom) commented, I will relist the discussion at WP:UCFD so that you may participate and bring up any relevant points. I think that option is simpler and less bureaucratic than a deletion review. Let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes; three editors. I forgot the nominator. No, upon some further thought I think I agree with you that the what I described above is better served by a notice such as I have on my own user talk page. There isn't really a need for someone to look up all the other people who happen to keep similar views. Thank you for your cheerfulness and willingness to re-list, but I don't think that will be necessary. Happy editing!—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Belated congrats

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

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

Sorry about my edits on Sarath

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