User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 4

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 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

This talk page archive covers the period 2007-10-01 to 2007-12-31.

Contents

CFD for Opponents and proponents of Alaska statehood

Hi. You closed the CFD for Category:Opponents of Alaska statehood and Category:Proponents of Alaska statehood as "listify and then delete both". At WP:CFD/W/M, you have listed two separate lists, one for opponents and one for proponents. Given that the lists will contain relatively little content at the start, and that the "opponents" category contains only six members, do you think a combined List of opponents and proponents of Alaska statehood would be more viable? My concern is to avoid a situation whereby one or both of the lists are deleted shortly after listification. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I really had no preference as to the target name. However, now that you bring it up, this seems comparable to Hawaii Admission Act. So feel free to listify to Alaska Statehood Act in a similar way. - jc37 05:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have listified both categories to Alaska Statehood Act and will add descriptions to each entry shortly. The descriptions are intended to serve mostly as a temporary measure until a more detailed section, similar to Hawaii Admission Act#Debate and controversy, is written in prose form. I have notified the creator of the categories of the listificaion (see here). Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother:(

Looks like serial mass tagging without any attempt at discussion in this article, can you kindly take a look at it please. Thanks Taprobanus 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't for a few days; I'll have limited Internet access in the next few days and will be otherwise occupied; I'll be happy to take a look once I return to editing sometime in the latter half of next week. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, you can take your time on this. These are articles that need to last a long time. So properly following wiki rules is very important. What I dont like is the mass tagging without any attempt at improving the article in the talk page. So come back and take a look at it. Thanks Taprobanus 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the source BUT the contents

Please tell how the following paragraph related to the article? All I can see,this is a pure attempt to deceive wikipedian readers with giving an impression that the this was done as a retaliation to an earlier attack on the forces.No problem having it as a source and but not the following sentence atg the top of the article .The killings took place two days after the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) launched a suicide assault on a naval convoy in which 18 sailors died....Iwazaki 会話。討論 08:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the BBC and Agence France-Press sources. They both find the information relevant enough to mention in articles regarding the massacre. However, to avoid giving the kind of impression you suggest, I have moved the sentence from the lead paragraph to a less prominent place, the "Reactions" section. I hope that addresses your concerns. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 15:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I may not be able to edit for the next few days, but I'll respond to any further comments as soon as I return.

Category:Homophobia

I noticed that you participated in the recent CfD of the category "Homophobia" [1]. It has been re-nominated for deletion, on the same grounds as before, and I was making sure you had an opportunity to present your interpretation of policy on this matter. The discussion can be found here. Best. --Cheeser1 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

I, Belovedfreak, present you, Black Falcon with the Africa Award for you excellent contributions to Portal:Africa and your success in getting it featured. --BelovedFreak 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I, Belovedfreak, present you, Black Falcon with the Africa Award for you excellent contributions to Portal:Africa and your success in getting it featured. --BelovedFreak 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I had to hunt around for that award, but it seemed the most appropriate! --BelovedFreak 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Take a look at this article. I think this is what you were looking at when you wrote that Sri Lanka is amongst the worst place for media. [2] Watchdogb 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That source is actually for aid workers, not media personnel. It's a very interesting read, though, and could be a useful source for another article ... perhaps Eelam War IV. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, your right. I made a mistake. Sorry and thanks for the suggestion though. Watchdogb 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. You suggested to write the a disputed paragraph as alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. Can I ask why you have added the extra and, at times, the [Sri Lanka Army]. It sounds like that they target the media personnel the least. Is there a specific reason to this ? Why not get rid of that part and have it say pro-government militias, the LTTE and, the Sri Lanka Army, ..... Watchdogb 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I added "at times" because of the particular wording used by the source: "Pro-government militia ... and occasionally the army have attacked the press ..." (emphasis added).[3] However, you may be right in suggesting that the sentence remain deliberately ambiguous to a certain extent, in order to reflect the ambiguity in the source (which compares the relative degree of targeting by pro-government militias and the Army, but does not perform a LTTE–Army comparison). Black Falcon (Talk) 00:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are again correct in adding that. I am kind of confused as what they article really means. They say Pro-government militia (predators of press freedom) and occasionally the army have attacked the press which they accuse of supporting Tamil nationalism but it says On the other side, the Tiger Tamils threatened those who oppose their political position. So in essence are they claiming that the LTTE is only proven to threaten but that Army and Pro-Government militia have indeed attacked media ? That is what I gather from that and if it is so , then wouldn't our wording need to reflect that explicitly ? Watchdogb 00:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure ... the term "targeted" covers both attacks and threats, so it may be the more cautious option, given the article's lack of explicitness on the matter. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Done! I see your point. Thanks for clarifying things for me. I agree to this version that you have written as a compromise. Thanks Watchdogb 02:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I just hope it's possible to reach some kind of agreement with Snowolfd4. I'm no longer quite sure what his objection is to the paragraph ... By the way, I think you're right in that "at times" should be removed. It does partly imply that the SLA targets journalists less than the LTTE – a contention that, while possibly true, is not discussed in or confirmed by the source. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

SL Province issue

Go ahead. No probs. Thanks Taprobanus 12:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

My mistake, someone had made an incorrect hyperlink, and I didn't realise.

All is sorted now --smadge1 04:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar thank you

Thanks very much for the barnstar! It's my third in as many days, and lovely to see so many kind people around here. Anyway glad to hear I made you laugh; CfD can be a sometimes be a tedious combination of dryness and pedantry (and I'm as guilty as anyone on both counts), and I'm glad I brightened it a bit.

BTW, I don't know if you have ever heard of the wonderful Sctotish-born Australian singer-songwriter Eric Bogle. I reckon that his song The Traditional Folksinger's Lament for the Passing of the Three-Chord Traditional Folksong has to be a strong candidate for the funniest-song-ever. There is a truly brilliant live recording of it on one of his albums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Phamton Crystals

I created a page called Phantom crystal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_crystal Would you mind editing it? Thank you! Neptunekh 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

UCfD

Perhaps we need to think of some way of getting some more participation--It was suggested on the enWP mailing list a while back that all the XfDs except image and article ought to be combined. I understand why they were separated, but maybe they were fragmented too far. Any other ideas? I don';t want to work in opposition, & my DelRev post just now was intended just as a way of getting some more attention to the qy. It may have read as hostile, and if so I apologize. DGG (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found the actual post, and it was someone else altogether- [4] and replies at [5]--I do not see it in my archive due to some unknown mixup. My apologies for the implication, & I will fix the discussion at DRV. (and a little more comment on my talk page now) DGG (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DOT

There's a bit of a backlog on WP:DOT. While I could certainly delete the templates myself, I sort of see it as a conflict of interest to mark and then subsequently these templates. If you have a minute, could you nuke these, please? Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I deleted about 25 on the 19th, but that seems to have only put a minor dent in the backlog. ;) I'll do it now. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If a template is only going to be used once, it really doesn't need to be a template (in my view). Frankly, I'm unconcerned with whether or not a template has been substituted or not; if it isn't being used, and no one objects, it should be deleted. With a case like Death metal, the page has properly been updated to use {{Infobox Music genre}}. I seen no reason to keep {{Deathmetal}}, as it would only create an extra layer for a regular editor. As for templates that are always substituted, I believe I found a solution, see MediaWiki:"Unused" templates.css, specifically the talk page. Thanks for taking care of the backlog. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for clearing out the backlog. --MZMcBride 03:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Economic Organizations of the United States

Sorry I missed the debate - I've been away for a long while. Thanks for the invitation. --LtlKtytalk | contribs 05:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by location

Hi. I noticed your comment at User talk:AMbot/requests that you intend to nominate the 'Wikipedians by location' categories soon, for renaming from "... in ..." to "... from ...". What's your reasoning behind such a move? Most of the affiliated userboxes express a 'current residence' affiliation, suggesting that "in" is more accurate. Also, your comments at that page (and in various UCFD nominations) suggest that you support deletion of categories whose only purpose is identification; yet, as I see it, "from" categories seem to be more about self-identification than "in" categories since they give information about place of origin, irrespective of current residence, and are thus comparable to the ethnicity/nationality categories. I would appreciate any clarification. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues.
One is that "in" is just a poor way to phrase it. If I commute from Paris to Marsailles, which am I "in"?
What is the actual purpose of the location cats? I'd like to presume it's for those who are "from" a location, or who have been from a location, so that they may know something about the location, and be good choices for easily spotting WP:OR, as well as knowing or having access to certain references local to the locale (such as a local newspaper). Such knowledge really doesn't change much whether one is from there today, or 5 years ago. Plus being "from" a place, whether today or five years ago, may indicate that the person may be more interested in collaborating about the place.
Another issue is to deal with several ethinicity categories. There are not a few which have nothing to do with who their grandparents were (ethnicity), so much as describing some country where they lived five years ago, but no longer live there, but still proclaim that nationality or citizenship.
Consider the Carribean Wikipedians. How many were people who "used to live" on a Carribean island, but currently go to school or do business in the US? Which are they "in"? Hence the problem. I think we should be less concerned about current geographical location, and more interested in where they are interested in being "from", for all the reasons laid out above.
And finally, because "from" is, in my opinion, less "idenitification", than "in". "in" makes me think of one of those signs a a mall or zoo: "You are here". How useful is that? : )
Anyway, I hope that clarifies. - jc37 08:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does clarify the issue substantially. Thank you. I do, however, have a few more questions/comments.
In my opinion, the primary value of the location cats is in the procurement of free images, rather than an implied interest in a subject. Category:Wikipedians interested in a region handles the latter aspect. That value is lost if we switch to categorisation on the basis of place of origin. Also, someone in a place probably has access to local sources, but someone from a place may not.
One of the reasons that I've always preferred "in" over "from" is that the former expresses a current affiliation. The "you are here" analogy is a good one, I think, but that would mean that a "from" category is the equivalent of "you were here", since place of origin categories cannot say whether the person is still there. For example, someone may have been born in Paris, but moved to Marseille at age 2; although they are from Paris, they probably can do more with articles related to Marseilles.
I've always perceived "from" categories as the equivalent of the "by year of birth" categories that were deleted a few weeks/months ago. Place of origin may or may not imply a certain interest, but I think it's unnecessary to speculate on that point when Category:Wikipedians interested in a region provides an explicit expression of interest.
Finally, even if we were to switch from "in" to "from", I don't think we should simply rename the existing categories, since they are mostly populated by userboxes that express an 'in' affiliation (e.g., Template:User lives France). How do you think that should be handled?
I'd be interested to know your further thoughts. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a Delete all of the location cats as well. That said, I think that they and the religion cats have the most possibility for collaboration other than the education/skill/use/interest cats. As for uploading pictures, If you were from Paris 5 years ago, and have photos from back then, your scanner works just fine today... I don't think we should discriminate due to the "now". Also, consider someone who lived in NYC during the time of the September 11 attacks, but now lives in London. Wouldn't this person be a good possible resource for images from that time? Also, I don't see "from" as "place of origin". I see "from" as some place that you lived at some time in your life. Will that mean that some members of the cats may be those 2 years olds that you describe? Possibly. But (to reverse an adage) let's not throw the good bathwater out with the babies : ) - jc37 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The ability to upload pictures taken in the past is something I hadn't considered, but a "from" category still can't capture the ability to take pictures at the present time. Should we have separate category trees for 'from' and 'in'? That seems a bit redundant, but I can't really think of another way to have both categories that speak to a user's current ability to take pictuers and categories that inform us about a user's past affiliations in a way that is not too vague (for instance, in your mind, a 'from' category is simply a way to express past or current residence, but I had automatically thought of it as a 'place of birth' category). Anyway, it may be something worth thinking about ... – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The "vagueness" is part of the reason I favour "from". It allows more inclusion, with still at least some specificity, without the need for duplicate trees covering similar ground. Perhaps the way to deal with your concern about current residency would be to modify/create associated userboxes to clarify? - jc37 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I gave the matter some more thought and think that my concerns regarding confusion could be allayed more easily: if we rename 'in' to 'from', we should just provide clear category descriptions indicating that the scope of the categories includes both present and former residence; that way, users may categorise themselves in multiple categories, if they so wish. I don't know that it's actually necessary to modify the userboxes, since they provide specific information about individual users; we could just add categories to the existing class of 'from' userboxes, although even that may not be necessary, since ultimately users will just re-categorise themselves as they see fit. – Black Falcon (Talk) 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"we should just provide clear category descriptions indicating that the scope of the categories includes both present and former residence;" - I agree. As for the userboxes, I think the best answer would be to remove the categories and start over. (Though, replacing the "in"s with "from"s in the boxes or on the userpages shouldn't be problematic.) - jc37 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Diavlog

This should be put up for speedy deletion.99.230.228.58 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does not really meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. I have, however, proposed its deletion. If no objects within a five-day period, the article will be deleted. If the tag is removed but no improvements are made to the article, it can be nominated for deletion. Please let me know if you have any additional comments or questions, or if I can be of further assistance. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cfdu header

Hi. I have somewhat weakened the wording of the notice at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Header. Although I can see the value of removing "point"-y comments, I'm concerned that it will end up causing more trouble than it's worth, in that it can spark off-topic discussion regarding the sincerity of expressed opinions. In the absence of any incivility or personal attacks, I think it may be better to allow such comments to remain; if a comment is clearly point-y, the closing admin will likely choose to simply ignore it. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While what I had posted follows policy, I have no problem with softening it in the banner text on the page. I'm sure that if problems occur which require text to be removed, it will, regardless of what the banner says. The banner was just because we seem to have so many commenters who seem unaware of what consensus is, or how a deletion discussion works. Thanks, by the way for noticing. I think you know that I prefer Wikiquette myself : ) - jc37 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You're correct, of course. Disruptive comments may and should be removed with or without the notice, though I still hope that the banner will help to keep discussions focused more on the value of the categories and less on the process of category deletion or the intentions, morality, and heritage of the nominator. ;) – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Rofl @ "heritage". (Although I think you meant "heritage" in a different way (smile), I wonder if we'll see such when we finally get around to that other proposal you and I were recently discussing...)
On a related, but different note: I sincerely wish we could put that banner about userboxes in flashing lights. Apparently people are just not getting it. I'm going to give the two banners some thought. Any ideas you have would be most welcome. - jc37 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What good is an insult if it doesn't extend to a person's entirey ancestry, culture, and beliefs, right? :P
I was tinkering with an alternate design for that box a short while ago, but decided not to change it because the design I had come up with was truly obnoxious. Then again, maybe obnoxious is what we need when editors post a "strong keep" only to state that they don't care about the userboxes in the next sentence. I was thinking of something like this:
Notice
No userboxes are deleted due to discussions on this page.
When discussing categories which are populated partially or wholly by the transclusion of userboxes or other templates, the category, not the templates, is to be the subject of the discussion. For template deletion discussions, please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.
At Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Header, the background would be gray, not brown. What do you think? Is it an improvement? – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think at this point, it's time to bring back the stopsign from {{warning}}. I changed it to info, but apparently that was too soft and innocuous to be seen.
I like the bigger text of the first sentence as well.
Maybe, rather than have a background colour, we could change the text colour? Bright red maybe? : )
Also, I'm going to think about the other banner, since it's something that might be useful for all XfD discussion pages. Let's check out other similar banners. I would like it to be seen, but I see its usage as present for indication, but not quite as glaring as the usebox one appaerntly needs to be. - jc37 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
We could use {{caution}} for one banner and {{warning}} for another, so that they are distinguishable ...
Part of the problem, I think, is that people never see the notice, since clicking the "this category's entry" link created by {{cfd-user}} (and the other three related templates) takes them directly to the relevant section. By the way, your suggestion of a flashing notice reminded me of this. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You know what... You're right. I think that we're doing everyone a disservice in having the link go directly to the category in question. They don't see the initial warnings, and they may not bother to note the other discussions on the page. By removing the direct link, we may increase the possibility of educating the masses, and potentially increase commenters. I'll Be bold on the templates.
And yes, a gif might be a cool idea, but then will we get involved in "the use of images" discussion? - jc37 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that it's a disservice exactly ... It does have its drawbacks, but it also carries certain advantages. For instance, it reduces the likelihood of having misplaced comments by new users. Removing the section link function could also be a source of frustration when people are unable to easily find a particular discussion (e.g., when there are many nominations on the page at once, or in the case of group nominations). I don't object to a bold experiment, but it may be worth seeking additional comment on the matter. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just finished the "bold" action... One interesting thing to note is that they still had the old CfD syntax intact (which needed to be removed in any case).
I also added some of what we talked about. Feel free to add the larger font (I had forgotten about that til just now).
And a simple "find on this page" should find any category up for discussion. - jc37 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could keep the section link and just integrate the userbox notice into the deletion template. The deletion notice already has a disclaimer that This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted., so we could just add a similar one for userboxes. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering creating another template just for group nominations, or maybe just adding a variable to the template to add section name, if wanted. That's probably the way to go, especially considering group noms. - jc37 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
(resetting indent)

I was thinking of something like:

This category is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's category deletion policy. This does not mean that any of the userpages or userboxes in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page. Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.

The change is a small one (just the addition of "userboxes" after "userpages"), but I don't think a big change is needed. After all, userboxes generally appear in the user categories which they populate. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Though I'm still dubious about the direct link. The more I think about it, the more I think that it was inappropriate. It was likely just added when the template was copied from an AfD template. And in the case of AfD the direct link takes you to the individual discussion on its own page. - jc37 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the revision history of Template:Cfd, which I assume was the basis of Template:Cfd-user, and it seems that the "this page's entry" link was first added in October 2004 (diff), while the standardisation with Template:Afd came in December 2005 (diff). Also, all of the other XfD templates that operate on the basis of daily logs (i.e. everything except AfD and MfD) seem to include a section link ({{rfd}}, {{tfd}}, {{ifd}}, and so on). I'll go ahead and make the changes, and I guess we can see how it looks from there... – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka issue

You are invited to join fellow admins here in hope of resolving Sri Lanka issues: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Sri_Lanka-LTTE_blocks_-_reviewed. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing the job on Category:List of Articles started by Thebluesharpdude

I speedied it and then got called away to do something. When I returned, you had completed the "paperwork". Thanx.

--Richard 18:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your advice please...

I saw you nominated Category:Suspected terrorists alleged to be associated with Tablighi Jamaat for deletion?

Can I ask you for some advice about the care and feeing of categories?

Cheers! Geo Swan 04:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! Were you looking for my general impression of WP:CFD and the categorisation system or something about this category in particular? Black Falcon (Talk) 05:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalmunai massacre

Hi an Admin User:Blnguyen claims that this article is Unsourced, MOS violations and the like. also sourced POV in any case. At the T:DYK [[6]]. However, fails to claim what is unsourced and what MOS are violated and what the pov source is. You see, this admin is someone who I have had dispute before. Can you please take a look at the article and comment on what the problem is. I am going to ask this particular admin what the problem is. I am still looking for another opinion on this article. I believe he is talking about UTHR as the POV source. Can you please comment Watchdogb 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure! I'll have a look and leave comments on the talk page. The "MOS violations" in question should be fairly easy to fix and any issues of potential POV can, I think, be put to rest through explicit attribution of claims. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I have explicitly attributed every single claim of UTHR knowing that problem might arise. Thanks again FalconWatchdogb 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I have left a detailed comment on the article's talk page. I think most issues could be addressed by rephrasing certain sentences and reordering some information. I will try to address some of the issues myself, but I will not be able to allocate much attention to this article for some time. I hope that you find my comment helpful. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fruit Quartz

Hi! I created an article called fruit quartz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_quartz Would you mind editing it? Thanks! Neptunekh 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notification

"revert: there is a speedy deletion notification bot" Source?

"so there's a good chance that notifications will be sent:" What does this mean, "there's a good chance?" You mean that there's a bot, but sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't? If so, what percentage of the time does it work?

"also, this doesn't seem like something that needs to be noted in the policy page)": Where else should it be noted? Note this is not merely the policy page, but the entirely of documentation on the speedy deletion process; the term "Wikipedia: Speedy Deletion" redirects to the page. Geoffrey.landis 04:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two bots that I'm aware of: CSDWarnBot and BetacommandBot (for images only)
It's a question of how much time elapses between the tagging of a page and its deletion; the bot regularly browses through an automatically-generated list or category of tagged pages and sends out notifications. If a page is deleted before the bot makes a run, then no notification is sent. I'm not sure exactly how much time is needed, but I've often seen notifications sent out within 5 minutes of tagging.
The policy page is intended to provide instruction and guidance; a general notice that notification doesn't happen isn't particularly informative in that respect. The fact of the matter is that notification for deletion nominations, while encouraged, are not required; that's a fact that I'm not particulary happy with, but there doesn't seem to be consensus to change it. I don't know where else, if anywhere, the information should be noted.
I hope my response clarifies my intentions. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be useful to see what the fraction of pages that are speedy-deleted do, in fact, have the authors notified-- 10%? Or 90%? Given that information you stated, though, it looks like that what I wrote was mostly correct; although I suppose a statement could be added "there is a bot that may or may not notify you, but you can't rely on it." Since this is the page of documentation of Wikipedia: Speedy Delete, it seems to be the correct place for the information, at least unless Wikipedia decides to split the documentation page from the policy page for speedy delete. You seem to be looking at the page primarily as a page of guidence for people who are deleting pages via speedy delete, but this is the only page of information available, it should also have information useful to people whose work is being deleted.
In short, you seem to be deleting accurate information from a documentation page, on the argument "people don't need to know that." I don't think this is a reasonable argument. Geoffrey.landis 13:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know how effective the bots are ... the bot operators could be more help in that respect. Still,many editors who tag pages for speedy deletion also notify the authors, so it's not just the bots.
As for the notice, it's clearly directed toward users who've had their pages speedily deleted (editors who do the tagging already know this information). However, the knowledge that they may or may not have been notified prior to the deletion is, at that point, no longer useful to them. Moreover, the current wording of the text ("Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should ... consider notifying the page's creator") already implies that notification is optional and may not occur. In short, while the information is correct, it is not especially useful.
If you do not find my argument to be convincing, you may of course request comment from other editors at the policy page's talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
First, the statement "many editors who tag pages for speedy deletion also notify the authors" lacks useful content, since the word "many" is not defined. How many editors qualify as "many": One percent? Ten percent? Ninety percent?
Basically, the problem here is that the documentation page Wikipedia: Speedy Delete is merged with the policy page Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. This leads to the difficulty that it's not clear whether the content should be that appropriate to documentation, or to policy. I notice that the "what links here" lists several thousand articles that link to "criteria for speedy deletion", so I will assume that the vast majority of these links are for the purpose of documentation, not for the purpose of instructing administrators. Geoffrey.landis 13:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
My purpose in stating that "many editors who tag pages for speedy deletion also notify the authors" was not to try to give you an idea of how often notifications occur (as you note, "many" is undefined), but rather to clarify that only measuring the efficiency of the bots – something that you noted was of interest to you – will not give a complete picture of the actual frequency of notifications.
'Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion' both explains the speedy deletion policy (and not just for the benefit of administrators) and serves as a documentation page about the process. However, not every detail about the process needs to be documented, and that is ultimately why I removed the notice. The fact that notifications may not occur is already implied by the text and an explicit notice is not especially useful. Those who do the tagging already know, those who are notified don't have a reason to care, and those who aren't notified will (by the time they visit the CSD page) have discovered it via firsthand experience. Simply (re-)stating the fact that notification may not occur only lengthens an already-long page, without providing any real value in return.
As for the several thousand links to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, perhaps you would find it useful to filter the list by namespace. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cavite Actors CfD

I have closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25#Category:Cavite_Actors_and_Actresses as "no consensus", which seems to be the best label to describe the fact that participants in the debate agreed that any such decision should not be made for only one such sub-category, and that the broader question of sub0national categories of actors should be considered via a group nomination. I will leave it to participants to consider whether they want to pursue such a a nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look

Nothing controversal, but might help you with your work later American Ceylon Mission. Take a look. Thanks Taprobanus 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. By the way, have you considered nominating it for WP:DYK; it seems to meet the criteria .... – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I did :)) Thanks Taprobanus 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made two edits to the article, but both involve mostly minor changes. It's an interesting bit of history to learn about and I enjoyed reading the article. I see from your talk page that the article has been all but accepted for DYK, so congratulations. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your effort, we need more of this collaborative edits in SL specific articles than the contant fights. We have so much to write about it. Thanks again. Taprobanus 00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Modla has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Category creator CFD notification

Hello BF, I've noticed that you make a point of posting notices of CFDs on their creators' talk pages -- and first I want to say that I, for one, really appreciate the fact that you do that. I too make a point of notifying the creator when I nominate a category for CFD; in fact, I also usually check the creator's talk page whenever I get involved in a CFD that somebody else started, to be sure that the creator has been notified. Which is how I've noticed that you're one of the few editors who care enough to do so. You appear to be using a standardized phrasing in your notices; is there a template for this, or do you just copy & paste your own choice of phrasing?

While I'm on the subject, can you enlighten me as to why it's not mandatory to notify category creators about CFDs, whereas such notification is required for AFDs? This makes no sense to me, and I have long felt that the CFD rules on this issue should be changed. Not incidentally, I just took a fellow editor to task for failing to notify me that he had nominated two categories that I created, which I was startled to come upon as I skimmed the list for October 31. Needless to say, I was rather irritated. It's unpleasant enough to have a category you created nominated for deletion, but to be denied the courtesy of being notified on your talk page is really insufferable.

More importantly, I think it is very important for category creators to be invited to take part in the CFD discussions whenever possible. It's more respectful, it's more democratic, and the discussion usually benefits from their participation. Even if it's one of those outrageously stupid or insipid categories, at least they get a bit of a "wakeup call" and may (hopefully) learn not to create similar categories in the future.

Regards, Cgingold 11:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I completely agree that the potential benefits of notification outweigh the costs (i.e. the time invested). In certain cases, the creator can contribute valuable insight about his or her intent in creating the category; other times, the nominator consents to speedy deletion/merging/renaming, allowing the discussion to be closed early. At minimum, notification carries (as you note) educational value: regardless of the outcome of the discussion, the creator's knowledge of the policies, processes, and extant consensus regarding categories is increased.
However, as far as I know, notification is not mandatory for any XfD (including AfD ... although I will admit that I don't make many AfD nominations – and notify the author when I do – and haven't been around AfD lately, so my knowledge may be outdated). I made a proposal about 9-10 months ago suggesting that notification be made mandatory for AfDs and that authors be given a 24-72 hour window (if memory serves) to improve the article prior to its being listed for deletion. I thought that this would reduce the number of articles about clearly-notable topics that are listed for deletion daily, thus giving AfD regulars a chance to focus their efforts on researching and discussing the more ambiguous cases. Unfortunately, the proposal did not garner much support.
As for my CFD notices, I simply type them out, although a template would be fairly simple to create and use. (I had written a long description of what a potential template might look like, but ... see Template:Cfd-notice and please let me know what you think of it.)
Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I hardly know where to begin. It's not often that the time invested in leaving a note is so amply rewarded. :) I guess I will just take your responses in order.
1 - Between your comments and mine, I think we've got an awfully good case for mandatory notification. Do you want to work together to come up with a joint proposal on this issue?
2 - I just re-checked the rules over at AFD, and evidently I was mistaken -- not sure how I acquired the impression that it was mandatory there. (Unless perhaps... it actually said something to that effect for a brief period?? I honestly don't know, but the page sure looks very different from the last time I saw it, which was probably a couple of months ago.) In any event, I do think it's fair to say that notification comes across as strongly encouraged over there -- with a full section devoted to the subject, and multiple templates, to boot. Whereas it's only mentioned briefly, as an after-thought, on the CFD page.
3 - My most sincere congratulations on the birth of your new template! :) I've just been admiring the little tyke, and I do believe he/she is nearly ready to get up and start walking. I am a little concerned, though, about that very emphatic frowning expression. It certainly does get one's attention, but I'm wondering if perhaps something a little less threatening might be more appropriate? Also, I've changed your wording slightly to make it sound more, well... inviting (that's the word!). Let me know what you think -- and thank you so much for following up on my query in such a concrete way. Regards, Cgingold 19:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
PS - I know you haven't asked, but I would be delighted to be the youngster's godparent. Cgingold 20:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly! After all, if it weren't for you, the young lad or lass would still be just an unrealised idea, whereas now it is real flesh and ... well, source code, actually ... but that's no reason to abandon the parental afterglow! I wonder, ... will you cover the kid's college tuition? ;) – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! And the feeling is entirely mutual.
1 - I would be happy to, although I'm not sure whether we should concentrate on mandatory notification or just improve notification. While browsing the talk page of WP:AFD, I noticed this recent discussion about notifications, which seemed to conclude with a lack of consensus for mandatory notification (and for notification by bot).
2 - Compared to the AfD and TfD, CfD places too little emphasis on notification. I would be happy to see an addition to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#How to use this page that resembles section 3 of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to use this page.
3 - It's a ... well, I don't know whether "Cfd-notice" resembles a feminine or masculine name. Maybe I should have consulted a name book beforehand. :P ... I think your change in the wording is a good one ... an explicit invitation is certainly more ... well, inviting. Also, the revised wording extends an invitation (there's that word again) rather than actually requesting participation ("please participate"). I also think you're right about the symbol: there's no need to use what looks to be a warning triangle in what is intended to be a friendly notice. I've replaced it with Image:Info non-talk.png, but please feel free to use another image if you think it fits better (I don't know much about the selection of notification images at our disposal). Or, we could just remove the image altogether...
I look forward to your response. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just want to let you know that I've read (and enjoyed) your reply, but I've been bogged down with other stuff. I will respond in detail after I give everything due consideration. Best, Cgingold 20:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Take your time. I'll be tied down a bit more starting tomorrow (don't you just hate it when certain things interefere with editing, especially trivial things such as work, sleep, thirst, ...) :) but I'll still be around. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical interest user categories

To where do you think the various "interest" user categories that are currently located in Category:Wikipedians by philosophy should be relocated? The transhumanism category would seem to belong in Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy, but it's less clear whether the surrealism category does. The Bayesian methods category seems to fit in Category:Wikipedians interested in mathematics, but it could also be considered a philosophical interest. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, a category can be a subcat of more than one parent cat.
As for surrealism, Probably Category:Wikipedians interested in art, similar to Category:Symbolist Wikipedians (which probably could use a rename ("...interested in symbolism), as well). - jc37 09:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've recategorised all three into Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy, as all involve a philosophical element. I've also placed the surrealism and Bayesian categories into Category:Wikipedians interested in art and Category:Wikipedians interested in mathematics, respectively. – Black Falcon (Talk) 15:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Removign citations from Assasinations attributed to LTTE page

Hi BlackFalcon , you have removed the BBC article on the ground its doesnt blame the LTTE for Gandhis assasination

Please have a look at the following para from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4835142.stm and tell me whats ambiguous about that

"It later emerged that a female Tamil Tiger (LTTE) suicide bomber had assassinated Rajiv Gandhi. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutugemunu (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

CFD - Instructors of The Teaching Company

Does deleting a category automagically remove all the categories from the articles in that category, or does that have to be done manually. If manually, can you let me know before you actually delete the cat and I will remove the tags using AWB, but I need to have the category in place to make a list of articles for AWB to edit. Regards—G716 <T·C> 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've listed the task at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, so the category will be emptied automatically by a bot. Only after it is emptied will it be deleted (by any administrators who checks the page). You needn't worry about manually removing it from the articles. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CFD rational

Discussion link: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 30#Category:ISI highly cited researchers

I was part of the debate about deletion of Category:ISI highly cited. There seem to be quite a few categories been deleted using the rational that they are not defining characteristics. I am baffled by this. Surely categories are mainly an easy way to make a list by editing something in the article, so reducing the maintenance problem. Is ther esome big policy shift in Wikipedia? Can you explain what is going on please? Billlion 09:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! While categories and lists often serve a similar purpose, their functions are not identical and they are not equivalent replacements for one another (see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes).
Categories are a means of grouping related topics on the basis of a particular attribute (such as year of birth) or of an intersection of two or more attributes (such as nationality and profession), in order to assist navigation between articles on related topics. The number of such attributes and intersections is virtually infinite, constrained only by limitations of language. In order to preserve the primary function of categories – ease of navigation – articles should be categorised only on the basis of attributes that are defining for their subject. (See the "nutshell" box at Wikipedia:Categorization; although that page does not offer a definition of the term, the one provided here mostly captures how the term is used and applied.)
Various attributes have, through months or years of consistent application across multiple discussions, been determined not to be defining. Most of these precedents have been summarised and listed at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. One of the attributes included on that list is appearance on a published list, such as the ISI list of highly cited researchers. It was not suggested in the discussion and my personal look at http://isihighlycited.com/ gave me no reason to suspect that appearance on the ISI list is a defining attribute for researchers. Having a high citation count may be defining (although categorisation on that basis is not desireable due to the inherent subjectivity of the word "high"), but as I mentioned in the closing comment, "has a high citation count" and "appears on the ISI's list" are conceptually different.
I hope this explanation removes any confusion my closure may have caused. Please let me know if I can provide further clarification. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV Category:Medical schools in California

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Medical schools in California. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ameriquedialectics 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

Sorry 'bout that, it came off a bit snarkier than I intended. Otto4711 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

dYK

Updated DYK query On November 9, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marrack Goulding, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Health in Manchester

Thanks for that deletion of the category above, I did intend to add further non-hospital pages to the category but then soon realised the fact that the title was too restrictive and it was most likely that the category wouldn't eventually consist of pages that weren't hospitals. Regards, Rudget 18:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

Hey Black Falcon. I would like to thank you for your wonderful job at Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War and nice clean up work. I know you have already commented on the above article on it's talk page but can you please keep an eye on here and comment when you have time. I have added your earlier comment but it would be helpful if you kept your eyes on the situation. Watchdogb 07:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do ... Thanks for the heads up. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Argentina Dirty War

Good call at this CFD section. From my comment there:

I did a dictionary search on google:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Adirty+war
One of the definitions found:

(n) dirty war (an offensive conducted by secret police or the military of a regime against revolutionary and terrorist insurgents and marked by the use of kidnapping and torture and murder with civilians often being the victims) "thousands of people disappeared and were killed during Argentina's dirty war in the late 1970s"

It was from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dirty%20war

I had not thought of using lower and upper-case to distinguish between dirty wars and the Dirty War. Plus the plural "dirty wars" allows an overall category to be created. It is one of those modern terms like "ethnic cleansing" that has entered the vocabulary. See:

Thanks. That was basically my thought process: the combination of capitalisation differences and the pluralisation of "war" should make the category title adequately unique to avoid any substantial confusion. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation categories

I'd say leave it the way you closed it. There was a lot of discussion here and there are a few more sub categories to be nominated yet. The Category:Disambiguation (ships) may be a solution yet but not right now. Some of the ones I did not nominate would not easily fit any of the forms that were previously discussed. This may well wind up being one of those changes that editors need to see the fallout from before reaching a final consensus. Vegaswikian 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Upmerge for Category:School massacres

Do you think I could do a manual upmerge here? You said in closing that "categorisation of school massacres by country allows such categories to be placed into the appropriate subcategory of Category:Massacres by country" - surely the way to do this is to put the appropriate tag in Category:Massacres by country on the article - assuming there are more massacres in the country in question than there are school massacres. Anyway, I want to try one more time to get a structure everyone is happy with. If you agree I could do a manual upmerge, does the category need removing from the bot holding pen? And should the further discussion take place at CfD or at the category talk page? I find that discussion at category talk pages gets wiped out by later renames that don't bother to preserve the talk pages when categories are being tweaked for slightly different names. There should be a more relaxed place to discuss category structure rather than the poll-driven atmosphere of CfD. The talk pages would be ideal, but the loss of discussion instead of them being moved is a real problem. Any thoughts? Carcharoth 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I do not think that you not need to remove it from the bot holding pen, since (whether deliberately or by some malfunction) the bot doesn't seem to relocate categories, but rather only articles.
In the CFD discussion, there were essentially four types of comments: those supporting the by-continent scheme, those supporting upmerging with country categories for any country with even one entry, those supporting upmerging with country categories for any country with 3 or more entries, and those supporting upmerging with no expressed opinion on the details of by-country classification. Upmerging the two continent categories into Category:School massacres is uncontroversial; what may be controversial is the depopulation and deletion of the country categories for those countries with less than 2 or 3 (or some other number) entries, particularly in light of the fact that they were kept at this CFD. It is this which probably needs additional discussion ... at CFD or elsewhere.
Your concern about discussion on the category talk page is certainly actual, as talk pages are occasionally forgotten. However, I and another editor recently undertook to properly relocate all orphaned category talk pages (see User:ST47/OCT) and to subsequently delete the remaining redirects. This is probably something that will need to be repeated from time to time, but the chance of losing talk page discussion is diminished as long as it's done fairly regularly.
As for Category:Massacres by country, I mentioned that as a suggestion only ... previously, all of the individual country categories were placed in the appropriate Category:History of [Country] categories, of which Category:Massacres in [Country] is a subcategory. In cases such as the US, Category:Massacres in the United States might be a good parent for the school massacre category; with the Osaka school massacre, for instance, it may be better to place the article directly in Category:School massacres and also separately in Category:Massacres in Japan, rather than the narrower intersection of Category:School massacres in Japan. But, again, that probably needs some further discussion. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for those thoughts. I'll try and get to this later. I'm afraid I didn't quite understand "I do not think that you not need to remove it from the bot holding pen" - was that a yes or no? :-) Carcharoth 17:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops! That'll teach me to actually re-read my comments while copyediting instead of just skimming over them. I meant: "I do not think that you need to remove it from the bot holding pen". Once the category is completely empty, it will be deleted. Also, if you like, I can manually perform the upmerge now (it requires just nine edits) and you can work on restructuring later on ... – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks! Carcharoth 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Y Done! Good luck with restructuring the category tree, and please let me know if I can be of any help. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What happened to Massacres in the United Kingdom eg Dunblane? - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
See Category:Massacres in the United Kingdom. Carcharoth 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

BlackFalcon, where should that CfD be recorded? Which category talk pages should the discussion be mentioned on? Carcharoth 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CFDs for categories that are deleted are generally not recorded anywhere except the original CFD log page... It's possible, however, to record the discussion at Category talk:School massacres in a separate section, perhaps something like:

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Category:School massacres in North America and Category:School massacres oustide North America were upmerged to Category:School massacres.

– Black Falcon (Talk) 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Making my comment clear

You're right that it's going off-topic, so I'll respond here. I definitely do not mean to imply that something sinister is going on. As I've said before, you are quite consistent in your deletion rationale and I do not think you have any objective beyond that of being a deletionist. (That is not meant as an insult but rather my interpretation of your Wikiphilosophy, and if you take it that way, I apologize.) That said, I believe you'll find several comments on previous UCFD discussions where "theoretical" collaboration was insufficient without actual collaboration taking place. I gave 10 reasons for collaboration on the Wikipedian Brights discussion which no one challenged, and yet that was closed in favor of delete despite there being twice as many editors supporting the keep position. It was neither the strength of the arguments nor the number of supporters that carried the delete. Clearly, the deletion process for user categories is currently askew. Again, this is not meant as a criticism of you personally. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, if it's OK with you, I'll remove my original comment in that chain as well as your responses, etc. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. Also, I apologise for assuming that there were any negative implications behind your "make clear what is going on" statement. More generally, I am not a deletionist (I don't agree with all of the principles set out here), but I recognise that I am more deletion-oriented than most when it comes to user categories, and I assume that's the context in which your comment was offered.
As for the sufficiency of theoretical collaborative value, I must disagree. In the discussion for the Wikipedian Brights category, you did indeed give 10 options for collaboration, but (as I noted in the deletion review) all of them "assume that mere self-identification with an object or idea translates to encyclopedically-relevant interest in or knowledge of the object or idea". I am not aware of any such evidence to support that notion, I am aware of scholarly research that disputes that notion, and rarely have good arguments been offered in particular cases to suggest that self-identification does translate to interest and/or knowledge. All that's needed to convince me is a plausible argument that doesn't make unlikely assumptions. Thus, essentially, you listed 10 areas of collaboration that could be helped by a user category of editors interested in the Brights movement, but not a user category of editors who simply identify as Brights. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You make a good argument, and I appreciate that. However, just because self-identification does not necessarily translate to interest and/or knowledge does not negate that a list of those who self-identify as X would logically demonstrate a positive correlation with having an interest and/or knowledge. I.e., if you asked 5 people who self-identified as X for help on an article dealing with X, one could reasonably expect that at least one of them would be able to provide you with significant help.
Also, of course, it's not just collaboration but POV that can be helpful (although I realize that this will be considered to be a very poor argument to many Wikipedia editors). As I stated on that discussion, being able to find someone with a POV that contradicts your own can be helpful in writing a balanced article. I personally have collaborated with a couple of Christians with exactly this goal in mind. Admittedly, I did not use the user category to find these Christians, but if I was concerned that an article I wrote might be slanted against Brights, I think it would be appropriate to find those who self-identify as such in order to help keep me neutral Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and I must say the same of you. With regard to the first point, it's possible that some correlation exists, but I think it's very weak. Why have a self-identification category that weakly correlates to interest when it's possible to create and naturally populate an actual interest category, such as Category:Wikipedians interested in the Brights movement? By "naturally populate", I mean that the category should be allowed to be created and populated by those who claim an interest in the subject, rather than by merely renaming a self-identification category or changing the text of an already-used userbox.
As for the second argument, I can see your point. However, there are certainly other, more effective ways of requesting a neutrality check, such as posting to a WikiProject, an appropriate noticeboard, the talk page of the article or related articles, or even to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Also, a category that can be used in good faith to reach people with a different POV can also be used in bad faith to reach people of the same POV (e.g. canvassing). This is not to imply that attempts to contact a person of the same POV are necessarily made in bad faith (such an argument is patently ridiculous), but merely to highlight that such categories also carry disadvantages, which would be mitigated if other, more common methods were used. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:3VCSD Project Helper

What do you make of Category:3VCSD Project Helper? On the one hand, it seems to be a project/collaboration category. On the other, the project exists only in the creator's userspace (see User:Compwhizii/3VCSD) and its scope extends to no more than 5 articles. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this may be easier than it looks : )
Userspace projects may be considered "unformed" works-in-progress, and as such, no categories should exist until the project becomes a project. (They may wish to propose it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.)
Just drop a note on the user's talk page explaining this, and I would presume that the user will understand. - jc37 22:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll try that. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Freemasons

I see that you have closed the CfD with a delete judgement... thanks. I noticed that there is a subcategory called Category:Prince Hall Freemasons (it has only a few entries)... can we speedy delete that as being part of the deleted category ... or do I need to go through another CFD nomination. -- Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do this without discussion. -- JASpencer (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Since it is not patently clear that the situation with this category is virtually identical with the main "Freemasons" category, I think a new CFD nomination would be more prudent. If I'm overlooking any glaring similarities, please point them out to me. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Prince Hall Freemasonry is a branch of Freemasonry. I just don't see the logic in deleting a category on "Freemasons" in general, but keeping a subcategory about a sub-group of freemasons. As I see it, we have the exact same issues with verifiability in Category:Prince Hall Freemasons that we had with Category:Freemasons. The concerns about WP:Overcategorization (especially: Non-defining or trivial characteristic) that I raised at the recent CfD hold true for this sub-category as well. However, if you feel that this needs its own nomination... I will do so. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DATABASE?

As a CFD regular, have you any thoughts on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not_a_structured_database? (Note: I am sending this message to a few editors who I notice are experienced particpants). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien category merge

Wow. You did all that merging really smoothly, even updating the portal page here. Thanks for that! I'm impressed. Do you have a little checklist of things to do when tidying up something like that? Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have a checklist, but I try to remember to check the "what links here" of a category page before deleting it. I generally don't update WikiProject lists (the fact that the category was deleted may itself be of interest to project members), which are often updated by a bot in any case, but most higher-level categories are linked from a portal page. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category recreated

It looks like this category was deleted by consensus, and then recreated:[7] There's probably some speedy tag to delete this, but I don't know what it is. Since you closed the discussion, you may want to look into it. dissolvetalk 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The category is actually waiting to be depopulated (it has been listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working), rather than having been recreated. I'm surprised it isn't empty by now, but the task should be completed by a bot within a few hours. Still, thanks for following up. As for a speedy tag, {{db-repost}} should work ... the template is oriented mostly toward articles, but reflects a general speedy deletion criterion and so applies to categories as well. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthemoessa

Hi Black Falcon! I created a page called Anthemoessa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks!Neptunekh (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that another editor got to it first, merging the content to Sirenum scopuli and copyediting it. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:William Butler Yeats

yure horrible and prejudished and yu r the worst roag adminn ever just you wait ill tell Jumbo Whales abowt you and ill have you boiled alive by arbcom for the way you close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 13#Category:William_Butler_Yeats ACCORDING TO YOUR OAN STRANGE OPINION

.

.

Sorry, I can't keep this up, even in jest :)

I wasn't entirely sure whether my arguments there were particularly solid, or evem to what extent I was playing Devils advocate, but it seemed to be a case worth making. Your closure was, as usual, thoroughly reasonable and very well-explained, and I think the fundamental point is that there really would need to be quite exceptional reason to keep such a category, and that exception was definitely not proven. Another piece of good work!

Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) I think the case was worth making, as this was clearly not a routine eponymous category CFD; the fact that the article County Sligo contains a section for Yeats is proof enough of that (as the article expands, the section may be merged, but it's still apparently something worth noting even at this stage). By the way, thanks for writing this; although the definition is not 'official' yet, I think it effectively captures how the phrase is applied, and it was quite handy when I was recently asked (somewhere at the top of this page) what I meant by "defining attribute". I see that the discussion has been moved to WT:CAT, and I'll try to comment there. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Index of UCFD precedents

Relisting

I'm not sure what you'd like done with this. (So I thought I'd drop you a note : ) - jc37 06:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and close the discussion. It's been open for nearly four weeks and discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany and Template talk:WikiProject Germany has completely stopped. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. I've closed as "merge" without prejudice to recreation. While there are advantages to having separate categories (it's easier to subcategories via the project banner than via {{reqphoto}}), those advantages are currently not being used, and so there is no need for duplicate categories. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Song articles

Also was wondering as to how to determine when this has been "completed". - jc37 07:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I modified the corresponding template quite a while ago, but the job queue is so long – and has been for about two weeks – that there's a significant lag in the emptying of the category. While I don't expect any additional action (beyond deletion of the old category) to be necessary, I've left the category on the WP:CFD/W page as there might be a few cases where the template was inappropriately substed. There are only 80 pages remaining, so it ought to be finished soon. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

user category precedent page

Your precedent page for user categories rules. Just thought you'd like to know.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm even a little eager to try it out ... to see whether the days of having to trawl through dozens of discussions hidden away in 500+ KB archives that wreak havoc on my browsing speed just to find that one relevant precedent that I only vaguely remember are truly gone. :) – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help : )

Please see talk page for more information. - jc37 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

XfD Barnstar

The XfD Barnstar
User:Jc37 and I think you should have one of these. Remember, the delete key is a weapon which we use only when no other... well, all the time, actually. - Mike Selinker (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Thank you both, but I think it's important to remember that all should be in moderation ..... Nah. Next target: Main Page. ;) Black Falcon (Talk) 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
(You're planning a precedents list for the number of times the main page has been deleted? : ) - jc37 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I fear it would take too long. :P Black Falcon (Talk) 00:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
12 times is "too long"? (bigger grin) - jc37 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What of all the deletions that might possibly, potentially, perhaps have been covered up by The CabalTM? I can't truthfully write "(tongue sticking out even more)" as I'm no Gene Simmons. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew the main page had been deleted. That's awesome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, then you missed out on all sorts of "fun" : ) - Oh and make sure you have an email account active or else : ) - jc37 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing work

Black Falcon you have done an AMAZING job fixing Vankalai massacre article up. Furthermore, your comment on many of the heated SLR problems are very well appreciated. Your neutral work is what is needed to keep the SLC related editors sane. Thanks very much Watchdogb (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. For a few months, I had been trying to minimise my involvement with SLC-related articles, but the success of this dispute-resolution process in individually addressing contentious issues is encouraging. I really hope that that the WikiProject will continue to serve as an active hub for collaboration and discussion even after the dispute resolution has ended. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by contact information

Thanks for not even talking to me about this, or not even making a single message on WT:CFD. -- Ned Scott 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully intended to discuss the matter with you, but decided to seek the input of the closing admin before doing so, asking whether I should initiate a new nomination for the categories. He decided that CSD G4 applied and deleted the categories. After that, there seemed little point in starting a new discussion, either at your talk page or elsewhere. Also, though you may criticise my lack of comment at your talk page and at WT:CFD, please keep in mind that you technically should have contacted the deleting admin prior to recreating the articles, as well as that WT:CFD was not the appropriate venue for the discussion.
If the order of my actions (Revert. Notify the closing admin. Stop.) somehow came across as dismissive, then I apologise, as that was not my intent. Given how quickly you noticed and reverted my edits, I assumed that you had watchlisted the template pages and that, therefore, you would be aware of the changes. Once the categories were deleted, I assumed that you would contact the deleting admin to discuss the matter with him (if you chose to pursue the issue), at which point I could join the discussion if necessary. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I snapped at you, but considering I noted that I was not aware of the previous CfD, and that I stopped when I became aware of it, I can hardly be faulted for their creation. The Village Pump and WT:CFD discussions were not to "overturn" any deletion, but to discuss if the categories I created were even bound to the previous CfD, or if it was even worth the trouble. I'm not even sure if I feel strongly about this or not, but it is a bit frustrating to be stuck in red tape for a deletion discussion involving four people. No hard feelings, though, and I apologies again for snapping at you. I have listed this at WP:DRV if you wish to comment further, Wikipedia:Deletion review#:Category:Wikipedians by contact information. -- Ned Scott 20:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not realise that you were unaware of the prior deletion discussions, and had operated under the impression that you were (at least, that's what I gathered from the threat at WT:CFD). I will comment at the deletion review. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD:People born in Mozambique

Link to the discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 23#Category:People born in Mozambique

Since Mozambique's case is not unique (we agree on that), precisely the more reason to consider allowing "Natives of" categories. And what about the fact that exceptions are allowed? Even more so when the exceptions are not so rare, as both you and I agree? SamEV 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Mozambique's case is not unique calls for consistency, but it doesn't suggest anything about whether we should consistently permit "Natives of..." categories or consistently delete them. Thus far, convention and categorisation guidelines support the latter. Also, I am not aware of any exceptions to the guideline: to have retained the category would have constituted an exception, but the discussion did not offer a reason to make such an exception. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This category was a compromise between User:Will Beback and me at the Talk:Teresa Heinz. She's ethnic Portuguese and a Portuguese citizen born in Mozambique in colonial times, but they'd placed her in several Mozambican categories. Will and I agreed that she and other people with similar history should be placed in a "People born in Mozambique" category. So I placed people, black and white, who'd been born there but who'd left for Portugal (or elsewhere) upon independence. The category is unambiguous, as it only makes that one claim: they were born there. Some did become Mozambican (of all races, again), some did not (of all races, too). That was the purpose; to avoid automatically assigning Mozambican identity to all of them simply because they were born there, since more facts about each person are required to assign identity. SamEV 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
While the category is indeed unambiguous, that does not necessarily make it any more reflective of a defining attribute of individuals. If an individual's sole affiliation with Mozambique is that they were born there, then there is likely no need for any Mozambique-related categories to be appended to that person's biography. In the case of Teresa Heinz, Category:People from Maputo should be (and I see that it is) used if her residence there is noteworthy.
Although I can appreciate the fact that this category was created as part of a compromise, what you're seeking is a change in categorisation guidelines. The current consensus is against categorising people by place of birth, and there are no circumstances surrounding the case of Mozambique that would justify or necessitate an exception. If you are interested, you may certainly challenge the rationale behind the current convention at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. As I personally do not have strong feelings on the matter, my participation in any such discussion would be minimal, but I do know that you're not alone in your support for people by place of birth categories. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm not the one arguing that birthplace was a defining attribute; Will was. I offered this category as a solution b/c he objected to my removing the other Mozambican identity categories (Portuguese Mozambican, German Mozambican, etc) in Heinz' article. He said that since Mozambique exists and she was born there, she should be placed in the Mozambique-related categories. As for WP:Categorization of people, I visited there a few days ago and left a question related to this. I got a reply that accords with what you just wrote. I left an open question in my last post there, and I wouldn't mind if you answered. Thanks. SamEV 07:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies ... I only skimmed the discussion at Talk:Teresa Heinz and failed to notice that. In light of this information, perhaps Will ought to be pointed to Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people, to seek a change in the guideline, as current consensus regarding the issue does not suggest any need to append a Mozambican identity category to the article, aside from Category:People from Maputo. (Also, the label "Portuguese Mozambicans" seems to apply to people of Portuguese descent living in Mozambique, a group to which Heinz does not belong – at least that's the impression I gathered from the article Portuguese Mozambicans.) I've replied to your question regarding Martin Lawrence at the talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll talk to Will and point him to this discussion as well. SamEV 08:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Please let me know if I can help in any way; even if I can't, I'll direct you to someone who can. Cheers, – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

<- The issue with Heinz is that she was born and raised in Portuguese East Africa. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So will Category:People from Maputo, which indicates residence, not suffice? – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon, maybe we ought to consider this matter closed. What do you think? SamEV (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been any more discussion on the article's talk page regarding this issue and Will hasn't disputed that Category:People from Maputo is sufficient, so I think we can consider the matter resolved. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

what, you moonlight for SMS.ac?

Every single edit you have made to the entry for SMS.ac looks like an ad. Yet otherwise you seem to be a nice wikipedian? How odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwho (talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Every edit I reverted introduced unsourced and contentious (indeed, potentially libelous) material. Any allegations about untrustworthy business practices should be supported by reliable sources; if those sources are provided, I will have no objection to the introduction of material that is critical of the company. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

help reverting a page move

Hi! A discussion about what's the appropriate title for Manila Peninsula mutiny is ongoing. However, without reaching a consensus, User:Of moved the page to Philippine coup attempt of 2007. Because of my depression I mistakenly reverted the title via copy/paste to Manila Peninsula mutiny. An error on the page's talk history occured. I humbly ask for assistance to revert back the title Philippine coup attempt of 2007 to Manila Peninsula mutiny along with its talk history. Thanks so much! †Bloodpack† 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The full history seems to be at Philippine coup attempt of 2007 and its talk page; could you be more specific as to nature of the "error on the page's talk history"? As for reverting the pagemove, I see that a requested move#December 4, 2007 has already been filed, so an administrator will process the request (based on the consensus achieved at the talk page) within five days or so. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I just want also to have the complete talk history of Philippine coup attempt of 2007 moved to the talk of page of Manila Peninsula mutiny, which was the orginal title. Thanks for taking the time to look and Merry Christmas †Bloodpack† 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The talk history should be located at a page that corresponds to the location of the article. So, as long as the main article is located at Philippine coup attempt of 2007, the talk history should be at Talk:Philippine coup attempt of 2007. If the WP:RM request ends with a consensus to move the article to Manila Peninsula mutiny, the talk page will be automatically relocated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

UCFD

The XfD Barnstar
For your massive contributions to WP:UCFD :) Snowolf How can I help? 10:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you've got yourself a big pair of "stars" there pardner : ) - jc37 12:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Two in nine days? ... Cool! Maybe I ought to start thinking about joining a cabal or two. ;-) Black Falcon (Talk) 05:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AtTask

Hello,

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

User:Lynbarn/Userboxes/User UWE

Hi Black Falcon,

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

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

Your attention please

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

I am beginning to hate high school all over again

BF, is it really necessary to nominate all the high school user cats individually? Could we do them as a group, as is commonly done on Xfds, and sometimes even on UCFD? Aargh. —ScouterSig 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the hard work anyway. —ScouterSig 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry ... :) I've been going through the "Wikipedians by alma mater" category tree one-by-one, so it was simpler (at the time) to make individual nominations. The good news is that I think there are no more than 2 or so high school cats remaining, so there shouldn't be a repeat of this. Still, for the future, I'll try to remember to do group nominations whenever my nomination rationale will be identical across cases. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Surnames

I just found this article List of Irish surnames starting with R and on review it appears to be a child (poorly built) of List of Irish surnames, which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames 2. I see that User:Quarl is not currently active and that you participated in the discussion, so I bring it to you to ask your opinion if the 25 (none for "X") child articles should be deleted base on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames 2 or if they need to get run through AFD, I hesitate to do prods on them for the boarderline consideration of the preexisting AFD, if it the AFD was enough they should go soonest, if not they need their own AFD it would seem. Jeepday (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't mind deletion via {{prod}}, I think it's likely that the proposed deletions would be contested. So, I'd suggest starting a mass AfD nomination to have the contents of the lists transwikied to Wiktionary, merged to wiktionary:Appendix:Irish surnames, and deleted. In the end, I think that this would probably be the least time-consuming approach. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I will post them. Jeepday (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good ... I've left a comment at the AFD. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I went to inform the creator at User talk:BlakeCS which lead me to leave a comment on the AFD, you may want to (or not) change your recommendation. Jeepday (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my recommendation in light of the new information. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

UCFD--Backing off for now

After watching the silliness unfold over the bloody stupid admin categories (and the shameless ILIKEIT votes by admins who should know better), I'm done with UCFD for now. I fully expect that the Doc G's POINTy new category and the rouge admin category will be retained, buried by a bunch of me-too votes by admins we've never seen before (and likely will never see again) in the confines of UCFD. If they are retained through sheer numbers, I'll be removing the UCFD page from my watchlist, because it will indicate to me that the process is broken. Good luck, and keep fighting the good fight. Horologium (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the rouge admins category will be going anywhere anytime soon. Its nomination is becoming a yearly event.
The trout category is more likely to have stemmed from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley. See GRBerry's comment on that page, and Mercury's response to it.
But besides that, while of course you're welcome to contribute to Wikipedia however you choose, I hope that you reconsider about UCFD.
While you're considering, here's some "bedtime reading": User talk:Dmcdevit/Archive19#Your recent speedy deletions. Just read on down from there. (And check the later archives for other UCFD-related discussions, if you wish).
Hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 00:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I too hope that you'll not leave UCFD entirely, though I can certainly understand your exasperation with it. To be honest, I considered WP:SNOWing the "rouge admin" discussion within about an hour of its nomination. I do support listifying/deleting, but realistically ... well, like JC said, it's not going anywhere anytime soon. The "trout" category is something entirely different, however, and I'm bothered by the idea that every little joke might merit its own category. Fundamentally, it is no different from the recently-deleted Category:Users who are full of LOL (or something similar), except that it contains only admins. Anyway, I still hold out some hope that the course of the discussion will turn around. Best, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I hereby applaud your dedication to UCFD as I got sick of it a while ago, in part due to double standards and trends that come and go. –Pomte 03:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If at least part of the applause is directed at me, then thank you. :) Looking back, I feel a sort of wry amusement at the fact that, when I posted my first nominations at WP:UCFD in June, I thought that it would take 2-3 weeks at most to do a general clean-up of the user category system. After all, with about five thousand categories (at the time), how bad could it be? Ask and ye shall receive, I suppose... Black Falcon (Talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
ROFL. It seems to me that certain parts of the user cat structure are basically unfixable (Category:Wikipedians by interest, anyone?), and some of the repetitive debates over a short period of time should have been avoided (how many UCFD discussions did we have on Category:Gay Wikipedians?), but the biggest frustration is having to re-delete categories that were deleted previously. As I have pointed out to a couple of other editors, five of the user language categories that I nominated for deletion were recreated within a month of their UCFD closes; four of them under the exact same name, and another under a substantially similar name. That was the reason that I stopped dealing with Babel cats, because it's disheartening to have to go through the same nonsense all over again. The flailex over Category:User als is another one at which I stopped arguing, after a stubborn user changed it back to the made-up "Alemannic", citing als.wikipedia as a precedent. And of course, we have the repetitive deletions of band fanboy cats, personal user cats, cats organizing users into groups that support or oppose core policies, and general nonsense cats like Category:Userpages That Are Full Of LOL (gahhh).
I am considering taking Category:Rouge admins to DRV when it is closed as keep (as appears to be likely), because none of the keep rationales rise above "It's funny", "I like it", "It's harmless" or "It's useful (for networking)". The category isn't funny (the essay is the funny part, and the userbox is the appropriate way to cite it), liking or disliking is irrelevant, it's not harmless because it will be cited as justification to keep similar cats (like the trout category, which has more votes to keep than to delete, based on numbers alone), and Wikipedia is not MySpace (or any other social network). I hate citing essays, but Arguments to Avoid in deletion discussions covers all of them. Several of the delete arguments (mine, Black Falcon's, Ben Hocking's) provide rationales for why it should NOT be maintained, including the citation of precedents. Unlike article space, precedence is relevant in categorization, so WAX, which doesn't work in article space, is commonly cited in categorization arguments. </end screed> Horologium (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
With regarding to the "Rouge admin" discussion, it seems to me that a lot of the arguments fail to draw a distinction between deletion of the category and deletion of Wikipedia:Rouge admin. For me, they are more frustrating than the "I like it" comments, since they carry the implication that a user category is an inseparable part of every random userbox and/or concept – a principle that has been rejected over the course of several hundred UCFDs and of several months. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, and what's even more frustrating is that most of these people are administrators, who really should know better. A recent (lengthy) discussion between jc37 and one of the ArbCom candidates (who displayed a startling lack of familiarity with UCFD processes and policy) led me to vote against that candidate in the election. When it goes to DRV, I will stress in the nomination that the category and the essay are not the same thing, and deleting the category will leave the essay and the userbox behind. I mentioned that in the discussion (twice), but the hive mind wasn't listening. Horologium (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Honorary membership

I am pleased to announce you that you have been accepted as an honorary member of WP:SLR. — Sebastian 19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 14 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iferouane, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

dyk

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

Merge

Thanks for your hard work on the List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. I am still concerned about the state of the article. I believe that there needs to be explicit attribution to the article. Some attacks are blamed on the LTTE by the Sri Lankan Forces or the Sri Lankan Government. As an involved warring party in the War the SL government/ Sri Lankan military ect are POV sources. I feel that these should be explicitly attributed. Can you please comment on this ? I will make a section in WT:SLR. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm trying to eliminate any duplicate entries in the list; however, I do intend to propose a set of inclusion/exclusion and sourcing standards for the list, either at its talk page or WT:SLR. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Understood! Great work Black Falcon. You have made wikipedia a better place yet again :) Watchdogb (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! :) I'm just glad that the problem of separate articles with subjective scopes is finally resolved. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Dog mine DYK

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

Category talk:Episode articles not asserting notability

Should the talk page of this category be deleted as well? Cyde was the one who deleted it, but it was his bot, so since you closed the CfD, I thought you would be the best person to ask. I (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The deletion discussion for the category are logged elsewhere, so I've gone ahead and deleted the talk page. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK three at one time!

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 16 December 2007, a fact from the article Russell Dumas, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 16 December 2007, a fact from the article Richard Nolte, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Updated DYK query On 16 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sapo National Park, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Amazing! All three feature at the same time. Great job! --Royalbroil 04:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

GFDL, merging, etc.

Where in the GFDL does it mention that? I'm not saying that I disbelieve you, but I've never heard that before. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. After reading through several pages of discussion, I've come to the conclusion that the GFDL makes my head hurt.
Thanks for the double check. Good to know. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 16 December 2007, a fact from the article Marsha Looper, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 16 December 2007, a fact from the article Georgiana Harcourt, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 11:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 16 December 2007, a fact from the article Charles D. Metcalf, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

intro is no longer missing from redtop page

It has been something like a day and a half since I thought that I was finished with Agrostis gigantea‎ and I have discovered much about citations and a couple of new templates since then, so I actually really do appreciate that you put the intromissing template onto the page so I would tidy it up some. I put a quote there about how the grass causes allergies.

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

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

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

DYK noms

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On December 18, 2007, a fact from the article Francisco Vidal y Barraquer, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On December 18, 2007, a fact from the article The Cannonball Adderley Quintet in San Francisco, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 18 December 2007, a fact from the article Heinrich August de la Motte Fouqué, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 07:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination for Joseph Finegan was successful

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On December 19, 2007, a fact from the article Joseph Finegan, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 19 December 2007, a fact from the article Jeanne Labuda, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 14:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)

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

DYK nomination for Jack Blott

I added the in-line citation for the fact that Jack Blott played only two MLB games. Thanks for nominating the article. I think you came up with an interesting hook. I've been working on another article this week on Germany Schulz that I think could have some good hooks as well. I'd be interested in your thoughts on a possible hook for that one.Cbl62 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I also wrote an article on James B. Craig on 16 December that may have a good hook, but people may tire of stories about Michigan football greats.Cbl62 (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice comments. Actually, all three of your proposed hooks for Germany Schulz would be accurate. On the third possible hook, both of the variations you gave are accurate. Of all the articles I've done, I think the Schulz one may be my favorite. How would I go about nominating it for good or feature article status? 02:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination for St Mary's Church, Cheadle

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

RE: DYK nomination of Rugby union in Belgium

Sounds good, mate! gaillimhConas tá tú? 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK Nom for Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Underworld

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 21 December 2007, a fact from the article Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Underworld, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 06:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Music genres

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

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

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

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

Thinking? or "No comment"? - jc37 09:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
On break, actually. :) Personally, I'd have like to have seen "music" added to the titles of a few other categories, but I didn't think that such a proposal would gain consensus. I'll take a look at the UCFD page now and reply to any more specific comments/issues. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK Nom

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 21 December 2007, a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Cheadle, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for you numerous noms. It helps people's attitudes to see their work recognized! --Royalbroil 14:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 22 December 2007, a fact from the article James B. Craig, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 11:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 22 December 2007, a fact from the article Peter Baume, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim(talk) 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

UCFD action

Would you please be willing to make the necessary actions to complete my closure of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:User ja-ksb? --After Midnight 0001 03:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I know that it was done per the nominator's specification :-) --After Midnight 0001 04:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hehe :) Well, I guess that is the best way to make sure that everything takes place as intended. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 23 December 2007, a fact from the article Paul John Hallinan, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

(On behalf of Anonymous Dissident) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 08:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK noms

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 23 December 2007, a fact from the article Rugby union in Belgium, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 23 December 2007, a fact from the article Jack Blott, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 13:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 23 December 2007, a fact from the article Palmaria, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Statistics

You're trained in statistics and you had the cheek to refer me to that page of prior deletion debates and to point me to the fact a page has been edited by over a thousand editors? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. ;) As to the debates in question, if you're walking away fair enough, but you've left open ended questions that I am going to answer because debate demands it. Hiding T 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

DYK nom - Frank Parr

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 24 December 2007, a fact from the article Frank Parr, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

~ Riana ⁂ 10:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 25 December 2007, a fact from the article Ava Helen Pauling, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thought

After re-reading Kbdank71's talk page, it occurs to me that he probably hasn't received the XfD barnstar. Would you like to do the honours? : ) - jc37 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? After all his time at CFD... Well, let's see what we can do to remedy this situation. :) Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. That means a lot to me.  :D --Kbdank71 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You're most welcome : )
What do you (plural) think - User:After Midnight next? : ) - jc37 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
He also definitely deserves one ... {{The Resilient Barnstar}} may also be fitting in light of his actions and behaviour following the insult- and threat-laden posts of a certain editor in October. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile."

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

Would you like to do it, or are you waiting for this? By the way, happy New Year! Black Falcon (Talk) 19:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I was waiting for you to give the resilient one : )
Though I would love some ideas for the new one as well. - jc37 12:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Statistics redux

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

Your insult might mean more if I had any idea what you were talking about. I participate in many deletion debates and can't figure out to which one you're referring, especially after my three-day hiatus. (Then again, if we accept my contention that your claims are baseless, this result is to be expected. After all, one cannot find a basis for baseless claims.) If you intend to throw out an accusation of intellectual dishonesty, perhaps you would consider offering an example of where you feel I've couloured the debate, and how? If you mean to take an intellectual approach to accusing of me of dishonesty (as opposed to the simpler style of posting random expletives), then at least do it properly. Cordially yours, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to do anything other than speak my mind. I have absolutely no idea which of my claims is baseless, but if we accept my claim that there is a cabal operating at UCFD I'd posit the result supports it. Why do I think you're intellectually dishonest? I thought we agreed above that you're misleading people by pointing them to statistics which don't support the points you are making. Did I get that wrong? Oh, and you might want to avoid the odd typo if you take such a high minded approach. ;) I think a lot of what is happening violates fundamental principles on Wikipedia. I could never agree that a category with 600 members should be deleted because two people think so, you have indicated you don't have a problem with that. I believe that mind-set is at odds with the very methods through which Wikipedia works, and undermines it. But, yes, I'm probably getting my knickers too twisted over it. It will work out. Either your ends will justify your means or they won't. The worst thing is, I don't actually care about the categories so much as I do seeing Wikipedians I respect do things which for me violate fundamental principles. See you on more sunny occasions. Hiding T 12:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately, I'm trying to prick your conscience. If it's not going to work, you're right, we should agree to disagree. I'd rather not fall out with you. I'm well aware of my own character flaws to know where I'm going wrong here. There's no need to belittle my lack of education. I could quite happily call a spade a spade if that's what you prefer. Hiding T 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
We most certainly hadn't agreed on that. I didn't respond to your post in the "Statistics" thread above only because of your follow-up comment: "Sorry, I in now way meant that the way it reads. I don't know the right way of what I meant, but that came out wrong. I apologise." In that section, you retracted your accusation against me, leading me to believe that the issue was closed.
So that my position is clear, let me explicitly state that I have not deliberately used statistics to mislead anyone on Wikipedia, nor do I believe that I've accidentally made unsupported conclusions on the basis of such statistics. I try to be careful when wording my comments and to ensure that any conclusions I suggest are reasonably supported by any data or information to which I point. Naturally, there is sometimes an element of personal interpretation involved, since any statistics that I offer would fall in the category of supporting evidence, rather than conclusive proof. But if we disagree about the extent to which the evidence supports the conclusions, then that's a difference of opinion, not a sign of deception or moral depravity on my part or yours. While we're on the subject: there is nothing misleading about stating that prior precedents exist to delete support/oppose categories; the precedents may be of poor quality according to your personal standards, but that is a different issue.
I don't want to continue the discussion regarding the number of people required to delete a category of a certain # of members – an approach that I consider, due to its wholly numerical nature, to be antithetical to the principle of reasoned debate and consensus – but I would ask you to consider the following: in general, it only takes one or two people to create and populate a category of 600 members.
If your goal was to prick my conscience, I can assure you that it won't work, and not because of a lack of conscience on my part. I'm not quite sure which part of my comment you felt belitted you, but I just want to say that was not my intent: I do not know anything about you or your educational background. Also, if you were surprised at my reaction, then you should view in the context of the fact that an accusation of intellectual dishonesty is about the only thing I would take personally, as I consider that to be a claim of fact as opposed to an opinion (e.g. an accusation of immorality).
I too would prefer not to have a falling-out, so I ask you to either retract your claim or, if you genuinely feel that I've been intellectually dishonest, to substantiate it with diffs, so that I could have the opportunity to clarify any misunderstanding (as I wrote above, I've not deliberately used statistics to mislead anyone, nor do I believe I've done so accidentally). If you choose to do neither, I will be disappointed, but I will not pursue the matter. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, happy new year. That said, it's your use of your statistics as most recently seen in this nom [8] which is causing me the issue, especially in light of the third paragraph you pointed me to. You declare in your nom that your statistics assert such a precedence exists, when your note in the third paragraph warns that such a conclusion should not be drawn. Is it in fact you assertion that your statistics show a precedence that such categories be deleted, or is it your assertion that the statistics show that categories which have been nominated for deletion, which represent a certain ratio of all categories, have typically been deleted, but that this can not in itself set a precedence since there are too many variables involved? I don't think a statistician would claim a precedence. A trend, with underlying factors, but not a precedence. Hope that clears up my assertion. I was also troubled by the close of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Wikimedia and advertising, I don't see any statistical invalidation therein, and personally it would be dishonest for me not to correct such an assertion were it made of me. Hiding T 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you too. Thank you for providing a diff as I think I can now confidently identify the root of this whole misunderstanding: you interpret a link to WP:UCFD/I as the equivalent of a statistical assertion, whereas I consider it nothing more than a "See also" link. Let me state from the very start my contention that simple statistics cannot reveal precedent; precedent is rooted in agreement reached through discussion, which is something that a simple tally of keep/delete results cannot hope to capture. So, a conclusion about precedent neither should nor can be drawn from the mere fact that all of the discussions in a given section closed as "delete" (as emphasised in the third paragraph of WP:UCFD/I).
Then why have I linked to WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians who travel in the "Vimy Ridge" nomination? Well, quite simply, because it's shorter than linking to all of the individual discussions. I assume that interested editors will actually look at the content of the discussions, which I do assert establish an actual precedent against "Wikipedians who travel" categories (in that an argument against this type of category was introduced and gained consensus support, and it's applicability as a general principle was reconfirmed in subsequent discussions). Now, others may disagree about this in particular cases, but that's why "precedent" is not a speedy deletion criterion and I initiated a discussion. ... Disagreement of this type is not any reason to allege intellectual dishonesty or moral corruption.
If you think I assume too much about the degree to which editors will research a nomination, then perhaps you can fault me for that, but I've done everything I could think of to emphasise arguments over numbers: I wrote the third paragraph of WP:UCFD/I and my nomination statements contain actual arguments, as opposed to simply "Delete per WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians who travel" (which is useful only in the least controversial of cases). The situation is essentially the same with the "Wikimedia and advertising" discussion: I did not offer any statistical validation there either, but only links to a set of discussions whose content I believe demonstrates the existence of a precedent against "support/oppose" categories. I will tweak the wording of the "Vimy Ridge" nomination to avoid any confusion about what I am and am not asserting, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on the revised version. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you then happy to clear up with the closer at the Wikimedia and advertising debate that your remarks have thus been misinterpreted? This is where the substance of my claim lies. I believe there is dishonesty in allowing that confusion to continue. If you do not agree with that, I will not argue, but personally it would be dishonest for me to achieve something through improper means. That is what I believe has happened given the closer's statement and your statements. Does that help clarify? There is no statistical validation, therefore we should make that clear. I do not overly mind that the closer weighed your comments above others; that I think that is wrong and not acting impartially is not your concern, but does strike to other issues I have with UCFD. That can happen, and I am perfectly happy to concede that admins have such discretion when closing debates. Personally I saw it as no consensus, but I am no process junkie and have distaste for jumping through endless hoops. What I overly mind is that you appear to be allowing the closer to close inappropriately without seeking to correct the misunderstanding. Other points of contention we might possibly have may be that the third paragraph of WP:UCFD/I is not so easily seen when one is pointed to a subsection of the page, and whether your statistics actually demonstrate the existence of a precedent against "support/oppose" categories as opposed to underlying trends at UCFD taking into consideration the bias of the types of categories likely to be nominated and the pool of closers and participants involved. I think we should be very careful in declaring they demonstrate a precedent amongst Wikipedians. I would think therefore there should be care taken in representing what the statistics mean, and I would hope you agree. Personally I'd be couching as "the way debates have been going appears to point to the deletion of these types of categories". I have asserted nowt as fact. Hiding T 14:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I believe you've misinterpreted the remarks of the closer. After Midnight stated: "comments about using these categories as measures of opinion (Sarek, Hiding) are highly dissuaded by the statistical invalidity of such assertions as argued by Black Falcon". So, therefore, he did not interpret my comments as providing any statistical validation for claims of precedent, but rather invalidation of claims that these categories are "measures of opinion". The two issues are distinct and the closer's consideration of one has little relevance to his consideration of the other.
As for the point about the prominence of the third paragraph of "WP:UCFD/I", I would welcome any suggestions you may have. While bias in the types of categories likely to be nominated may sometimes be an issue (it is not an issue when all categories of a particular type have been nominated and deleted), you're again looking at things purely from the perspective of the ratio of "keep" and "delete" results. Such an approach ignores the content of the discussions, which is the thing I'm trying to bring to the attention of potential discussants. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no statistical invalidity in my claims that one can use the categories to gauge opinion, only disagreement over the weighting assigned. If your opinion wins the day, fair enough, but it should not win for reasons that are not true. I would hope you would agree. As to your points regarding my perspective, I have no idea how they relate to the matter at hand, nor how you glean that to be my perspective. <edited to insert following>To clear up the confusion over pointing people to WP:UCFD/I, either point them to the page as a whole or add a link to the disclaimer at each section as is done at that arguments to avoid in deletion debates. Hiding T 11:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There is invalidity in your claims that the categories can be used to gauge opinion -- see biased sample, reliability (statistics), and validity (statistics) -- and it's a fairly minor point to quibble over whether the invalidity is statistical or theoretical and based in statistical concepts. (The distinction is critical in statistical contexts, but not so in the context of a CFD discussion.) I will keep in mind your advice regarding WP:UCFD/I; I personally dislike the section-disclaimer format of WP:AADD, so I'll likely just try to be more precise in the wording and linking of future UCFD nominations. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Either my sampling is biased and yours at WP:UCFD/I is, or neither are. You're working with statistics in a far more empirical way than I was suggesting could be done with user cats. I was looking to do so in line with WP:CONSENSUS, and I still feel the cats are valid tools for searching for indicators of opinion. I don't believe the statistics you are compiling at your page support the strength of some of the assertions made of them, but I feel sure that the user cats would have supported the claim that this number of people have categorised themselves as such. I'm very careful in what I assert, and I don't feel I see the same care in some statements you make. But I give. I'll retract whatever you want me to retract and move on. I can't help the way I feel about what's going on, though. I can't assert something that I know in my heart isn't real, but I couldn't tell someone they shouldn't assert something when I know in my heart it could be asserted. All the best, Hiding T 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why you feel that the categories are valid indicators of public opinion... From an empirical standpoint, there is virtually no question that they are not. (Perhaps our definitions of the term "valid" differ...) I also maintain that they are invalid as indicators of consensus, since I believe that consensus requires an exchange of arguments and ideas, which a category simply cannot provide. The fact that 100 people have categorised themselves into a user category to express their support for something is not especially interesting or useful (from a statistical standpoint) once you consider how the categories are populated, as well as the fact that Wikipedia has more than 5 million user accounts. The fact would be useful only if one was able to make valid generalisations based on the distribution of membership across a given set of support/oppose categories, but that is not the case. (Note that "public opinion", "consensus", and "number of people [who] have categorised themselves " are not equivalent concepts, and the # of people in a user category is not a reliable or a valid measure of opinion or consensus.)
In view of our differing opinions on the standards for user categories and the amount and nature of discussion required to achieve their deletion or retention, it is quite natural that we disagree about the strength of various assertions made on the basis of claimed prior precedents. I have no problem with the fact that our opinions on the matter differ or with the possibility that we may be unable to reach agreement on this issue. It was your accusation of intellectual dishonesty that irked me. In the end, I'm not asking you to change the way you feel. However, it's natural that I will reply to an assertion that I perceive to be clearly inaccurate (e.g. the assertion that user categories can be useful as indicators of public opinion). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 26 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Germany Schulz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 12:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only nominated the article. I've copied the text of this notice to the creator's talk page. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 26 December 2007, a fact from the article John Ralfs, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Happy Boxing Day! --PFHLai (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 27 December 2007, a fact from the article VMF-441, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 27 December 2007, a fact from the article Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 08:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on renaming the Wikipedians in quality category to Wikipedia quality assurance specialists. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Miller17CU94 (diff). – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Pakistanphobia

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

Human rights in Sri Lanka

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

I reverted your edits because: (1) you deleted significant sections of the text without justification, replacing it with a duplicate "Background" section, and (2) your additions violated the neutral point of view and no original research policies (e.g. "LTTE, the bloodiest terrorists group in the world", "LTTE terrorists cold blooded killed several Sri Lankan Army soldiers").
If the article contains information that is misleading or inaccurate, you are of course free to remove it. However, you should not add personal commentary or inherently biased statements to the article, and I would encourage you to explain changes in the edit summary field. You can also raise specific concerns on the article's talk page (here). Alternatively, if you could point out what content, in particular, is misleading or incorrect, I would do my best to address the issue (assuming, of course, that we can agree on the problem). Please let me know if I can help in any way. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: CSD discussion

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