Jump to content

User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

hi

Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)

Circumcision may decrease a man's risk of getting HIV but it may also INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia. (and some doctors even say other STD's too but I won't get into that and I wouldn't put caps on INCREASE.)

The article on circumcision mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once. Click on the article. You tell me if it's an article on the procedure called circumcision or a pro-circumcision propaganda pamphlet.

Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my one sentence I want to add? Or possibly get new Admins to take over this article, which has fallen way below Wikipedia standards.

here's the New York Times piece... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&fta=y

I used to love Wikipedia until I went to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:User category

Your reversion is fine with me. I'll let you deal with the template depending on how trends at UCFD turn out. Maybe have a parameter for enabling the wording to add to categories that have established collaborative intent.

Regarding your points, AFAIK language cats do not use this template. Your 'artificial legitimacy' worry should be minimal because people have always had the opportunity to edit their categories to talk about collaboration, yet the only time they bring it up is at UCFD. –Pomte 09:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

I don't know if i'm asking this right, but where can you get those nifty userboxes to cheer up my profile page? Puffz0r (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There are two fairly comprehensive directories of userboxes here and here. If you're looking for something in particular, let me know and I'll try to help. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Radio

This whole cat and all it's subcats could probably be nominated due to being essentially single article cats. (By comparison, radio talk shows are not likely to have anywhere near the number of articles that a television series has.) The parent cat "Radio" on the other hand is way too vague as it is. Is it about radio broadcasts? radio technology? Audio broadcasts of any kind? Public radio? Ham radio? etc etc.

So why am I mentioning this to you? Because (as I'm currently tool-less) I'm hoping that you'll tag the cats and make the nom (I'll be happy to comment in the nom after : ) - jc37 07:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure! Do you think it would be useful to separate the nomination into three parts (for radio talk shows (e.g. The Stephanie Miller Show), radio stations/networks (e.g. BBC Radio 4), and the main category) or would that only create confusion? Black Falcon (Talk) 07:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Splitting a nom is almost always the better route. - jc37 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll post the nomination in 10-15 minutes or so. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Though note that my next act is to go offline : )
(Incidentally, if you have the time or inclination, please take a moment and see if there are any backlogged discussions that you might close.) - jc37 08:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It appears that not all of the subcats are single-article categories: see e.g. Category:Goon Show, Category:The Rush Limbaugh Show, Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. Perhaps I should exclude those from the nomination or hold off on the nomination of the main parent cat... can you think of an alternate way to proceed? Black Falcon (Talk) 08:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll hold off on the nomination until we're back online. For reference, I've pasted what I'd prepared so far (see below):
I support deletion of all these. It does not help Wikipedia to categorize "who listens" to anything (same with all "who watch" and "who like" categories, IMO). PS- Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page a while back. I was online at the time and thought I was the one that reverted it, but looking at the history apparently you beat me to it. VegaDark (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a nomination for the radio station/network categories, but am still holding off on the other categories pending comment by you and/or jc37. As for the userpage vandalism, no problem. I was going to block the user but Slakr beat me to it... Black Falcon (Talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(de-dent) Looks really good. I split off the couple that weren't actually talk shows into their own sections. (And to be honest, I'm leaning towards weakly keeping those 5 - in particular the last 3 - per similarity to Wikipedians who like X TV series. But they still should be nominated with the rest to see what others think.) - jc37 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, Check out Category:Broadcaster user templates. I wonder how many "hidden" categories also exist... - jc37 17:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll tag the categories and post the nomination shortly; I'll also do an AWB run on the userboxes in Category:Broadcaster user templates to check for hidden user categories. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Posted. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked through the template category and found only two 'hidden' user cats for television networks: Category:Wikipedians who like The CW and Category:Wikipedians who like CNBC. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like another nom in the making : ) - jc37 10:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians interested in radio

Wikipedians interested in radio
Category:Wikipedians interested in radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Note: This is a group nomination of Category:Wikipedians interested in radio and all of its subcategories. Detailed nomination rationales for the subcategories are offered below.
Nominator's rationale: This category is too vague to be useful for encyclopedic collaboration – indeed, it is too vague to be useful as anything other than a parent category. "Radio" can refer to the "medium of wireless communication" in general, specific radio technologies, the activity of radio broadcasting, specific radio broadcasts, radio frequencies, the electronic device, and a host of other meanings. Since there is no reason to expect that an interest in one implies an interest the others, the category effectively fails to tell us anything specific about the users it contains.
Wikipedians by radio station/network

These types of categories do not foster encyclopedic collaboration, since merely listening to a radio station implies neither an above-average desire nor ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it. See related precedents here, here and here.

Wikipedians by radio talk shows
Wikipedians by panelist game shows (comedy)
Wikipedians by radio series

Verifiability

Hello Black Falcon, i just noticed you were the last person to edit the Wikipedia:Verifiability page and was wondering if you can help me with a question or refer me to someone who has the answer..... If you look at the Tasman Bridge article located in the references section, there are 2 references that dont specify what part of the article they are citing. Is this allowed in wikipedia? as i cant find a page relating to this specific issue. If this is not allowed is there some sort of template i can put there to let editors know its not supposed to happen? kind regards Wiki ian 06:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for wasting your time, i have found what i was looking for. Wiki ian 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks a lot, I was assuming that since the creator of the category was simply adding the category to people, I was accidentally thinking that meant user category, but now I understand it was the actual User: wikipedian's category, and thus it's more like a "biography" category. Thanks for moving it for me! ^^ — talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, I am really really becoming confused as to whether Wikipedia even follows it's own policies, or whether administrators even listen to CfD arguments or simply decide based on themselves (I'm assuming good faith, but it seems a little biased that many more people voted to delete, and made strong arguments, while VartanM simply made a couple accusations of "canvassing" and "holocaust denialism relation", yet delete arguments were stronger and I linked to policies that were violated by this category). I am trying to discuss it with the administrator who made the decision to keep named Mike Selinker, but he seems to be 100% sure that the Armenian Genocide is a fact rather than a historical label (whether it's wrong or right is irrelevant, the category is still wrong) on events dealing with 1915.
He instantly put a Keep, and didn't even refute any of my points or arguments or anyone else's arguments other than publicly declaring that "it is a fact" etc, which was echoed by the Armenians. I mean, I don't go around putting a label like Category:Politicians that use cheap tactics, on Obama, Bush, or Clinton's biography, so why should Armenian Genocide supporters be able to label upstanding citizens and renowned historians like Bernard Lewis (who is an expert in Islamic history) be labeled away with a bad connotation? I apologize if you are not interested in dealing with this, I just believe I have no one to turn to, since even administrators seem to not care about wikipedia policies. If Armenians have the right to label historians and scholars as "Armenian genocide deniers" then shouldn't I have the right to declare Armenian historians as "Azeri Genocide deniers"? Also, this Category: Genocide denier was deleted because we don't want people to create an arsenal of genocide denial categories since so many people have declared genocide against countries they quarrel with! Link to CfD of AG denial. Thanks for your time. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Knowing the closing admin (not personally, though), I am confident that personal bias was not a factor in the closure. As for the category, I do not believe that the question of whether the Armenian Genocide actually took place (or, more specifically, whether the label of "genocide" should be applied to what took place in 1915-17) is all that relevant. One can categorise deniers of an accusation just as easily as one can categorise deniers of a fact, and noting that someone denies something does not in and of itself carry negative connotations. That said, I could be swayed to either side of this debate: on the one hand, the category groups people on the basis of opinion about a question or issue, which is discouraged; on the other, denial of the Armenian Genocide is a fairly defining characteristic for many of the people in the category.
With regard to similar precedents, I think Category:Holocaust deniers (see CFD discussion) is a more comparable case. Category:Genocide deniers was a category whose scope could not be easily determined and, if interpreted literally, would include people who deny the concept of genocide in general, rather than a specific genocide.
If you feel that there was some failure of process, you could, as the closer has suggested, request a deletion review. An alternative - and I consider this viable only if Mike Selinker consents - would be to nominate Category:Holocaust deniers and Category:Armenian Genocide deniers together to debate the more general issue of whether we should categorise genocide denial at all, rather than the specific issue of whether we should categorise Armenian genocide denial. (Feel free to link to my comment.) Black Falcon (Talk) 07:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok thank you for your advise and comments. And you're right, it's not about whether the Armenian Genocide is right or wrong, but my argument was that if there is no problem with this category, then I can easily make a "denier" category about almost anything, which I will just to prove my point of your suggestions do not work. I really hate promoting POV but if I have to push POV in order to prove to wikipedians that this category and the idea of making a category about opinion-siding and political-labeling (many people labeled as "armenian genocide deniers" are simply historians who disagree with the term and have no ill feelings for Armenians nor great feelings about Turks, they simply have mentioned in public that they believe it is wrong to label massacres and an armed rebellion by Armenian forces as genocide), needs to be stopped. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 08:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you found my comments helpful, though I don't see how "promoting POV" is an issue here. Let me just clarify that I consider the Armenian Genocide to be a fact (i.e. the events that took place constituted a planned and deliberate attempt to physically destroy, in part or in whole, an entire national group), but simply am not convinced (yet) of the appropriateness of categorising deniers of it. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to put a coda on this, I have absolutely no objection to calling into question whether we have "genocide denier" categories at all. My position will be that if category:Holocaust deniers continues to exist (which I think it should), this category can continue to exist.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

NOT

Yes, I think you found the appropriate wording. thanks., DGG (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As do I. Thanks to you both.--Father Goose (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reopened discussion on Category:Wikipedians interested in books

You were part of the discussion of the ucfd of Category:Wikipedians interested in books. I have reopened the discussion. If you wish to particpate in this second discussion, it can be found here. - LA @ 23:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thread on WP:AN

There is a thread on WP:AN whioch concerns your actions, it is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Improper_archiving_of_a_user_category_for_discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned the matter is now dealt with satisfactorily. DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me, and I'm glad that the issue was resolved. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfB

You may or may not have noticed that recently I dropped notes on several talk pages suggesting this. I mean and meant no "slight" to you or anyone else by not suggesting you. (Not that you feel/felt this way, but not sure how else to put it : )

I'm just not sure that you (or VegaDark, or me, for that matter), would be "electable" at this time, considering closing, or being in, some of the more contentious discussions of late. However, that said, I'd be happy to be shown I was incorrect, and would obviously support either of you.

Anyway, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, check out User:Mike Selinker's talk page. I think he'd be a great condidate, and any insight you might add would be welcome : ) - jc37 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I am, and thank you. :)
I'm flattered by your comments, but I agree that I would not be electable at this time, for the reasons you noted and also because I've had only limited involvement in RFA in recent months (see some of the oppose comments here). (Incidentally, I think some editors might oppose Mike Selinker for the latter reason as well. My standard for RFBs is "Has this user/administrator demonstrated a consistent capacity to evaluate consensus?", so I'd gladly support him, VegaDark, and/or you, but some editors want a record of involvement in RFAs. Although I can understand the desire for evidence of familiarity with the process, I personally don't prioritise familiarity with RFA as a factor.)
More generally, at this time, I don't think I would be able to devote adequate time to being an active b'crat. Most of my time on Wikipedia is taken up by UCFD, CFD, and occasional participation in various other deletion discussion venues. In addition, I'm trying to think of ways to make WikiProject Africa more active, and there are also a few redlinks in the mainspace that I want to turn into bluelinks, so...
Still, I appreciate your offer of support. If he is interested, I would be happy to offer a co-nom or support, whichever he prefers. (The same goes for you and VegaDark.) Best, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
So while I'm here... I don't have any particular desire to be a bureaucrat, but I'd do it if people wanted. I haven't contributed at all to RfA's, though, so if that's a condition (and it would be a reasonable one), then I don't qualify.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Closing RfAs is one of the main tasks of a bureaucrat. So knowing how you'd be there, is something that will likely come up. Even if you aren't active now, you'll always have the option later. The other 2 (3) have to do with bots and names (and optionally checkuser). Essentially the above have to do with user-rights and tasks that go along with that. (Checkuser being an optional "addition" to that.)
That said, though you're a prolific contributor, and easily trustworthy, if you've no intention in helping out in those places, there's no reason for an RfB nom. So at this point, it's really up to you. - jc37 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Moravcsik

On your article on Andrew Moravcsik, you cite an article by him supposedly found in the Journal of Common Market Studies 1993, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p. 447. I have this journal right in front of me, but it is not by Moravcsik, as seen below:

Title: Towards monetary Union in Europe--reforms of the EMS in the perspective of monetary union.
Authors: Thygesen, Niels
Source: Journal of Common Market Studies; Dec93, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p447, 26p

Clearly, the citation you mentioned is incorrect. The above is from the ebscohost database. If you have a subscription, feel free to check it. Could you please check your source and correct it? Thanks. HJV (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this. The error was in the page numbers: Moravcsik's article (pp. 473-524) comes right after the one by Thygesen (pp. 447-472). I have corrected the citation. Thanks again, Black Falcon (Talk) 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok

Thanks for clarifying! LB22 (talk to me!)Email me! 19:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

re: User Thomboykt

I had the same thought you had regarding User:Thomboykt's edit at WP:PROD]]. The article appears to be Savannah Outen. He made the very same comment (as he made at PROD) in the article. Another editor deleted it as out of place. I copied the comment and pasted it on Talk:Savannah Outen. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Category:Wikipedians who play poker

I must say that I'm amused by seeing my second job lumped in with "people who play UNO." Oh well, my fault for not watch-listing it I guess. I never watch-list cat's I think that no one in their right mind would waste the community's time trying to get deleted, but the killjoys of the world never fail. -- Kendrick7talk 23:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

About article "Terrorism"

Hello black falcon,

I am quite old user of wikipedia but participating in a talk is quite new for me so , i realy appologise for putting my request on policy page, couldn't realy understand, hope You know what i mean?

But I wants to say same thing which i wrote there and should i say that again. ok. I read article "Terrorism" to find out, where world stand to define terrorism.But it wasnt quite good experience, as a Pakistani, I know and i focus more about positive side and living in pakistan in such society where you see world as biased (which actualy not, world is not biase to pakistan). But using Pakistan's name as a state sponsoring terrorism is not american,british or any european methodology. All these countries have appreciated steps and struggles which pakistan is doing to tackle terrorism. Please remember that pakistan is the country which have given maximum sacrifices against terrorism. Wikipedia is universal source of education and millions of pakistani students get help from this source for their educational and refrence purposes. and again I would like to say that palacing Pakistan as a state sponsoring terrorism is quite indian methodology and wikipedia should not be part of this bias. Indians are right to call pakistan a state sponsoring terrorism,perhaps terrorist for them are freedom fighters for kashmiris. For millions of kashmiris, presence of indian army is a symbol of terrorism. All those groups which have been describe as terrorist groups and sponsord by pakistan are actually kashmiri groups. Managed and supported by native kashmiri people. As Pakistan claim kashmir a part of their nation, we are more then happy to support our kashmiri fellows morally. We are with them and have been with them at every world forum.Uniter nation or european union, everywhere pakistan protest against Indian state military terrorism in Kashmir.

Wikipedia is here not to chose a side, but to provide a neutral educational platform for world and I beleive it is against its fundamental policy(neutralism) and politically motivate if they keep Pakistan magnifying in their article of "Terrorism". and certainly it makes this belief very strong in young generation that WORLD IS BIASED TO PAKISTAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfz21 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. After reading the article, I agree that a detailed section about "Pakistan" is wholly unnecessary in a general article about terrorism and violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I have removed the section from the article. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfz21 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why I've grown tired of the Babel cleanup

You actually saw the discussion before me, because I normally don't view Deletion Review, but yet another one of the dialect languages I nominated for deletion is up for DRV. I think that that whole section is becoming more trouble than its worth, and it's going to get worse if the nationalist people ever discover it and start pushing their propaganda. Horologium (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly. To be honest, I had expected there would be more controversy... Perhaps part of the reason that there's been relatively little objection to the deletion of the various categories is that they are heavily template-populated. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sideshow Cinema

The article Sideshow Cinema which you worked extensively on sometime ago is up for deletion, I'd thought I'd let you know. Plank (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated template q

I have a question about how the deprecating/speedy deletion of templates works. Looking at the history, I'm thinking that you'd know the answer ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the template and the project page, so the process should continue to function normally. Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates for speedy deletion is populated by Template:Deprecated date, and a tweak to the template should suffice to move the contents of the category. I wonder, however, whether such a change is necessary; looking at Category:Speedy deletion, it does not seem that any of the subcategories use "Wikipedia" in the title. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I rather agree with your doubts over the name change. I expect we'll be changing it back soon enough, but now at least I know how to do it. Thanks for your help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Subcategorisation

Hi,

Regarding this edit that you made, I want to bring to your attention the guidance that, in most cases, "an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory".

Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This has been discussed at length in the past. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories, in particular the so-called Secondary categorization rule. I could go into more detail but I'm just off to the airport . . . .Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah... I was aware that the rule was applied to ethnicity categories, such as subcats Category:African Americans, but was not sure whether a similar consensus existed for music categories. Thank you for clarifying. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. At the Opera Project we have been trying to work towards a clearer and more logical singer category structure but it will take a little time. Of the three elements, (vocal) range, genre and nationality, only range is accurately categorized and this creates issues which we have to overcome. -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had noticed that the category tree for singers and musicians, despite being one of the best developed and most complete, is not always consistent. So, I wish you and everyone else working on the problem the best of luck. By the way, I closed this discussion (it was actually the discussion that led me to your edit to George Shirley) as "keep", given the apparent lack of consensus to merge. However, looking at the comments by User:Grcampbell and User:Kbdank71, I think there would be more support for a merge if it was done as part of a general overhaul of the relevant category structure, which is what I understand you're working on. Again, best of luck, and have a safe trip, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my error

Thanks for promptly reverting my edits to Template:Cfd-notify. I've no idea how I ended up editing that page rather than the user talk page where I was trying to leave the message. I could see the template wasn't working, but I was called away before I could look into it. Strangely, the message on the user page now looks fine. Maybe I had a browser problem. Anyway, thanks again. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. (It has actually happened three other times this month, see history.) The issue had to do with substitution of the template: since the template generates its own section heading, clicking the section "edit" link when the template is not substituted will take you to an edit window for the template, as opposed to the user talk page. I edited the message on the user page so that it would link to the correct section heading (though it took me two tries). Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha! That explains it. Well, I know why that kept happening: WP:CFD#Notes for nominators did not specify that this template had to be subst'ed. It does now. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the page ... I had completely forgotten about it! Black Falcon (Talk) 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mamadou Diabaté

Hi,

I noticed that you created the article Mamadou Diabaté. I was thinking of nominating the article to be featured on the DYK section of the main page ... however, I noticed one discrepancy: the third and fourth references are clearly distinct in terms of text, but link to the same website. Is this a copy-pasting error?

By the way, the DYK "hook" I had in mind is:

...that Mamadou Diabaté, a Malian kora player, was nominated for a Grammy Award in 2005, but lost to his cousin Toumani Diabaté?

What do you think?

Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the link. Counting pure body text, exlusive of the appendices, discography, and infobox, I arrive at a figure of 1505 characters. It's right at the threshold, but may be worth a nomination... Black Falcon (Talk) 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
With the refs taken out too? I came up with something like 360… --Kakofonous (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh nevermind...I was looking at word count, not character count. Feel free to nominate! --Kakofonous (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to note that and was edit-conflicted. ;) As for the nomination, done! I hope you don't mind, I also copy-pasted your original nomination to offer the selecting admin some choice. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

More unfair and biased restrictions.

Ok, I am getting kind of tired of these administrators playing one-sided all the time. First they claim that they want to be fair and stop vandalism from both Azeris, Armenians, and Turks, but then they always seem to make decisions in favor of Armenian nationalists. Why? You remember the weak decision on Category:Armenian Genocide deniers and now when I create a category similar Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists to that since they allowed that, they threaten to block me and remove all the pages? Why am I always discriminated against? Is there a lot of administrators that are Armenian or what? — talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of what comments have been directed at you, but I can offer my impressions of the "propagandists" category: it should be deleted per WP:NOR and WP:BLP. There is no objective way to define who "dogmatically promote[s]" something or does something "for political gain". Finally, the scope of inclusion is so broad, ambiguous, and arbitrarily-defined, that the category is not viable. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Then I recommend renaming. However, the category Armenian Genocide denier, was created to discredit certain authors and somehow give readers the idea that the Armenian Genocide is a fact and anyone who doesn't accept the label is a "Crazy nut". Please suggest me a better term for someone who consistently promotes the Armenian Genocide... or better yet someone who has mentioned the Armenian Genocide. Perhaps a recommendation to rename would be better, like "Category:Armenian Genocide Believer" or something? — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the intent of the editor who created Category:Armenian Genocide deniers, but being a denier of something does not imply being a "crazy nut" or any other negative thing. As for a better name for the "propagandists" category, I'm not sure that there is one. I don't think we can objectively classify "someone who consistently promotes X" ("activist", perhaps - but the label is generic and not especially informative) and "Armenian Genocide believer" is overcategorisation on the basis of opinion about a question or issue. Believing that the Armenian Genocide took place is not defining for most people... Black Falcon (Talk) 07:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither is it defining for people who don't believe in the genocide. overcategorisation on the basis of opinion about a question or issue also applies to "Armenian Genocide deniers" because denying something is an opinion. Right or wrong? — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Juding from the category members it seems to be somewhat more defining; however, as I noted in our previous conversation, I think it may be worthwhile to have a dual nomination of Category:Armenian Genocide deniers and Category:Holocaust deniers "to debate the more general issue of whether we should categorise genocide denial at all, rather than the specific issue of whether we should categorise Armenian genocide denial". Black Falcon (Talk) 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Category:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GreenJoe 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK Nom

Updated DYK query On 10 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mamadou Diabaté, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jèrriais

I apologize; I'm in grad school and get quite busy some time. I was unable to respond to your question in a timely manner. But to answer it now:

Yes, Jèrriais has a distinct orthography, which has been standardized for over 40 years. The Norman "languages" have 3 different Orthographies: that of Jèrriais, that of Dgèrnésiais, and that of the Continental Norman dialects. Sèrtchais, which is almost dead, has no standard form, but tends to copy Jèrriais/French in practice (though a simple phonetic form has been proposed). Written Jèrriais is probably readily comprehensible to speakers of other Norman dialects. Certainly, I expect Dgèrnésiais speakers would have little problem with it (the two orthographies are similar). On the same note, I can read Dgèrnésiais almost as well as I can read Jèrriais (my biggest problem is vocab differences). However, as a Jèrriais learner, I struggle immensely with understanding written Continental Norman, as the Continental Orthography (and, honestly, frequently Continental pronunciation) is quite different from Jèrriais. Compare ouaîsiaux (Jèr) to ouésiôs (Cont) or j'va (Jèr) to quéva (Cont). Now, as I'm not a native (or even fluent) speaker, this may be more difficult for me than for a native. However, I have an awful lot of linguistic backround that should make this easier for me than for most people. I expect natives would struggle with that orthographic difference. For what it's worth, the Norman Wikipedia does include some important things in both Continental Norman (specifically the Cotentinais dialect) as well as Jèrriais. There is even an article (clioche/clloche) in both dialects (I expect this was an experiment. It seems to have worked fine, but I have not noticed a like duplication since). Anyway, does this answer your question?

The Jade Knight (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. ... I'm a bit torn on the issue. On the one hand, your response seems to suggest that the category could potentially assist translation and other collaboration efforts; on the other, the language is not used by many people and I suspect there is not too much written material in the language which might need translation (e.g. for the purpose of sourcing).
In light of your comments, but noting the objections of the other participants in the CFD and DRV discussions, I would like to table an alternative type of solution: creating Category:Wikipedians interested in Jersey (as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in a region) and maintaining a manually-generated list of speakers of Jèrriais on the category page (or its talk page). I realise that interest in Jersey and ability to speak Jèrriais are distinct characteristics, but perhaps they are close enough to justify such an approach. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
While most people who speak Jèrriais are likely interested in Jersey, I'm not so interested in finding other people who are interested in Jersey as I am in finding other Jèrriais speakers, particularly in hopes of finding potential contributors for the Norman Wikipedia. Sadly, Jèrriais speakership, nearly universal on the island a century ago, has declined rapidly on Jersey, and now most people "interested in Jersey" do not speak Jèrriais.
In regards to your other comment, the Norman languages actually have a particularly rich written tradition. While this may seem paltry compared to languages like English and French, there's still an awful lot of informal stuff out there in Jèrriais (and the other Norman languages), and it seems to be growing exponentially. One website alone, Les Pages Jèrriaises, hosts over 3000 pages of Jèrriais-language content (poems, stories, wordlists, collections of proverbs, etc.) The Jade Knight (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I realise that the overlap between editors who understand Jèrriais and editors interested in Jersey will not be perfect (perhaps it will even be substantially different), but a manually-maintained list on the category page (or talk page) would probably be better than no category or listing at all... Black Falcon (Talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. Let me put it this way: The overlap between people interested in Jèrsey and those interested in Jèrriais could be approximately similar to those interested in the History of England and those interested in Old English. Definitely some overlap, but really not all that much. The Jade Knight (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

dyk well done on another one

Updated DYK query On 15 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lake Piso, 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 Victuallers (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberia

HI. I don't know whether you know but Liberia is one of the least developed countries on wikipedia. Any articles particularly one with decent content is a blessing. I've been adding infobox maps to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Liberia as with sorting out most of the African countries and making the locator maps, but most of them are not even one line stubs -on the country;s major towns too!!! Is it possible you could work at expanding any of them up to an acceptable level? And also give me some sources in which I could also help at improving them. Keep up the good work ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try but, unfortunately, I can make no guarantees... I have three active projects at the moment: (1) expanding Sapo National Park with various sources to try to bring it to GA status; (2) creating an article about a notable Zimbabwean musician; and (3) expanding Ogunde (song) to submit it for peer review. Once I have finished one or two of these, I could turn to articles on Liberian settlements.
As for sources, I do not know of any that could be useful for multiple articles... I tend to gather my sources from a combination of a standard web search, a Google News search, a Google Books search, a JSTOR search for academic journals, and a LexisNexis search for news articles. If I encounter a general source for Liberian settlements, I will let you know about it, and I'm always willing to try to help on specific sourcing issues. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC) (Thank you, by the way, for your work on standardising the naming of the settlements categories for Africa.)

Counter-terrorism

Black Falcon, there seems to be some confusion on the above article. I believe that users do not understand WP:SYNT and therefore they are using material published in different reliable sources to synthesis and advance a position that is not claimed in any of the given citations. Can you please comment on the talk page of this article when you have time. Thanks !

PS I replied to your question on WT:SLR. Watchdogb (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a look (at WT:SLR and the article talk page) in a few moments. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Beautiful work on the article Black Falcon. Thank you very much for your time ! Watchdogb (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but you should thank Hcberkowitz – it was his work on the section that introduced the necessary measure of definitional clarity. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you also please take a look here. A user keeps adding categories related to "Terrorist" or "Terrorism" to a couple of articles. However, these cats are not backed by RS. I have reverted the changes but do not plan on reverting anymore until someone can comment on this situation. The two articles in question are Ranjan Wijeratne and Lakshman Algama. Take your time Watchdogb (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My internet connection is extremely slow at the moment, but I'll have a look at it when it's back to its normal speed again. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm back... I'll take a look at the page shortly. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, thanks for your reply. I have removed all terrorist categories from both articles per suggestion and per guideling #8 . Thanks again Watchdogb (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
A user has re added the tags and is clearly misreading information given by RS. Can you please comment on WT:SLR. Watchdogb (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I will comment there (and in the other new sections) shortly. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ogunde (song)

Updated DYK query On 16 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ogunde (song), 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

I'd like you to look over something I wrote (here). I'm not asking if you agree, I'm asking if you would read for accuracy. Thanks in advance. - jc37 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it gives an accurate portrayal of the issues. With regard to the point that "reversion of that action often requres a full CFD nomination", I agree that there is an inconsistency and think it's important to make that explicit. If I may ask, how do you intend to use the page -- as a handy reference during discussions or perhaps something more (e.g. moving into project space)? Black Falcon (Talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It was part of a lengthy discussion I had with someone. I just wanted another "set of eyes" to attempt to ascertain that I wasn't misrepresenting what we've been seeing the last few months/years. Thanks, btw : ) - jc37 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I can image that the page could be a useful 'standard response' of sorts (or, at least, a general guide) to some of the comments/questions that frequently arise at UCFD, DRV, and elsewhere. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC) And, you're welcome. :)

thanks

for your explanation! Stephanvaningen (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

UCFDs of Wikipedians by media/genre interest

Black Falcon...I have requested in several of the UCFDs a suspension of all UCFDs on Wikipedians by media/genre interest until they can be reorganized. Since you seem interested in these categories, I would like to know your opinion, in any of the discussions with my request. Please take a look. Thank you. - LA @ 08:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I will take a look at your proposal and respond on the UCFD page. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Move over redirect help

Can you kindly help me to move Sri Lanka Tamil people to Sri Lankan Tamil people over redirect please. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability question

To quote you:

I'd like to offer my thoughts on the question you posted in the edit summary of this edit: how else does one establish notability?

Notability is a characteristic of topics, not of articles. If the article on Politics was poorly-written and failed to cite any reliable sources, that would not be an indication that the topic is not notable. To put it more succinctly, the current state of an article has no relevance to the notability of its topic.

I understand your argument. You're correct that a poorly written stub can still be notable. But ultimately, the notability must come from secondary sources. So, if those cannot be shown, then the topic / article cannot be shown to be notable except by original research. I don't advocate deleting stub / poorly written articles. I do advocate deleting topics that cannot be sourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Who like/dislike and "fans"

Thanks for organising that section ... its had grown too long and lumped together diverse discussions under one general heading. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try to tackle more of the unsorted as I have more time. Also, any chance we can start integrating some of the older discussions? or is that "on hold" atm? (To put it another way, if you're willing to list them (perhaps on a sub-page), I'll help sort : ) - jc37 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's mostly a matter of working up the motivation to tackle a given month. :) I'll do March and April today and will try to finish up the remaining 6 months over the next few days... I'd appreciate any time that you could give to shortening the "Unsorted" section. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The tough part is likely to be going through DRV (and CFD) to find those discussions, as well. Well... One step at a time : ) - jc37 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
DRV is somewhat easy due to the low volume of daily nominations and the low proportion of category discussions, but the old CFD archives are definitely not something to look forward to. :) Black Falcon (Talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Then I'll leave DRV in your obviously able hands. When it comes to CFD, I was very active in CFD back when the Wikipedian category usage began "exploding". So I can probably be more of a help there. (Though I may also poke User:Mike Selinker and others when the time comes : ) - jc37 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just finished adding the list of discussions (including DRVs) for April, including numerous additions to the "Unsorted" section. I'll do the same for March after a short break. By the way, I've included links to a number of "depopulate" discussions; feel free to remove them if you think that they don't belong on the list. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just re-ordered the sections. (I'm not sure about whether to merge preference and interest yet.) But besides that, what do you think? - jc37 20:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks good! I think that the consolidation of related sections under one parent heading makes the page more useable. I have a concern regarding just two sections: "Wikipedians by award" (not all discussions are about Wikipedia awards) and "Wikipedians by defunct/non-existent project" (not all of the discussions are bout Wikipedia projects). The issue with the latter could probably be solved by relocating a few discussion links, but I'm not sure what can be done about the former. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably to just split the sections, else we can think of "something" : )
Also, I'm not sure, but I think I may have accidentally wiped out your March 22 edit to the page when working on this. Please double check. - jc37 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Re-added; I've also added the discussions from March 2007. After reviewing these older months, I'm baffled at the sheer number and variety of useless categories that were created (that's excluding categories that were created for humour). Black Falcon (Talk) 22:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, just wait til you see the mess it was prior to UCFD. And I must say, Mike Selinker deserves quite a bit for the work he did in standardising conventions. - jc37 07:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
After looking at some of the mass nominations from August 2006, I definitely agree... Looking at the prevalence of blue-links and red-links, it seems that most of the naming conventions established by his nominations have lasted to this day, except for the various category groupings/trees which have been deleted altogether. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

German-style board games

If you have time, could you please offer your thoughts regarding the progress of the discussion here (specifically, your thoughts on the new category and what to do with the userboxes). Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I was just looking at that : ) - jc37 19:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably should give you an update, the DRV was closed as endorse. However, please see: User talk:J Greb#3PO, as well as User talk:Aldaron for the continuing saga. - jc37 01:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language

What do you think should be done with Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language? It was tagged as part of the March 15 nomination, but no comment was directed at the parent category's title and I myself wasn't really set on any name. Another nomination, perhaps? Black Falcon (Talk) 20:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well my first "knee-jerk" reaction (and what I was presuming in the closure) would be to have it match the subcats: "Wikipedians who contribute to..."
However, the name really isn't the greatest. So, yes, I think a UCFD discussion to see if we can decide on something better is probably a good idea. - jc37 20:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I started a new nomination to solicit additional discussion of the issue. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Infobox Scientist

Fixed it! The problem was caused because the image= and author_abbrev_zoo= parameters weren't set to have default values. The function that was supposed to check if they existed (#if:) was working perfectly; unfortunately, though, instead of seeing a blank parameter, it saw {{{image}}}, so assumed that there was something useful to print out. I've checked, and both fixes seem to be working. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cfd-Notify

Unfortunately, no; that's part of the reason why the template gets substed. Unless the header is hard-coded to the page it's on, it's going to lead back to wherever it is hard-coded (if that makes any sense). I can add in some code that makes a big red ugly warning message pop up when there's no subst:, but there's no way to fix the edit link without removing it entirely. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the warning message (and yes, it was ripped straight from {{prod}}). Hopefully that should be enough to avert that little problem. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I need help please

This user named BlueBoy69, blocked me for 24 hours, for simply talking about known and verified terrorist organizations [1]. Claiming that I violated my "block", when I posted NOTHING about the Armenian Genocide nor about Azerbaijani-Armenian conflicts. I don't see why the heck can these guys have so much authority to stalk me and block me, when I didn't do anything wrong. I cited my information and covered material that verified sources discussed. In addition, I have been posting many cited information to a wide variety of articles, fighting vandalism, and not being involved in any edit wars or violating any policies. Why am I being punished like this? I mean this means, anything that doesn't agree with the POINT OF VIEW of people with admin powers, is wrong, and the wikipedia policies never apply to wikipedia. Please help me on this issue. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not involved in the two Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration cases, nor have I been involved in their subsequent enforcement, so I am unaware of much of the context that would be necessary to make an informed judgment regarding the merit of a block (since your block has already expired, I assume that's what you were asking for). However, I can offer the following comments, which you will perhaps find useful:
The discretionary sanctions put in place by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 apply, as I understand it, to the same articles and topics that were covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. In the first arbitration case, the context of the conflict was defined as: "disputes centered around articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as a wide variety of related topics." Thus, it is not an implausible interpretation that your edits fell under the scope of the ArbCom cases, even though they were not directly connected to the real-world conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan or to the Armenian Genocide.
However, I can not speak on behalf of the Arbitration Committee and do not want to speculate about the intentions of its members; in this case, the WP:AE noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee itself are best able to clarify whether this interpretation applied. However, before you turn either to WP:AE or to the Committee itself, you should allow the blocking admin time to respond to your comment.
Incidentally, I want to encourage you to avoid references to "these guys" and "stalk[ing]", as such comments tend to personalise a disagreement. It would be better, I think, to just focus on the nature of the disagreement itself.
In the interest of transparency, I also encourage you to notify BlueBoy69 of this thread. I do not believe that I've made any contentious statement, and a request for a third-party review of a block is not unreasonable, so there should be no issue. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about CSD#P2

So, I thought about doing a P2 on Portal:Lotus Connections, but I am very unfamiliar with the criteria regarding portals. You'll note in my nomination that I was very timid about even MfDing it :)

Question about P2: I considered it, but my thinking was that since the portal is very new, one could argue that it is "under construction". I imagine a lot of quality portals started out in a condition that would have failed P2 (of course, maybe that assumption is incorrect as well). So, is P2 valid even if the portal is very new, if the odds of the portal ever developing enough content to satisfy the P2 criteria are very slim? Or, is P2 so strict that even if a portal might one day meet the minimum size requirements, if it doesn't now then I can flag it with P2?

(Note I asked the same question on the MfD discussion page, but I thought people might not have it on their watchlist, so I decided to copy it over and ask you directly. Thanks!) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at the discussion page. Thanks for letting me know, by the way -- I didn't have the page on my watchlist (I've added it now). Black Falcon (Talk) 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done

The Special Barnstar
For your well-reasoned closure of the very contentious "...of color" CFDs. Otto4711 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No deletion now.

I've redirected it to my userpage. End of story. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

{{current disaster}}

Thanks, that actually works a lot better. ViperSnake151 23:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, is the template intended to apply only to natural disasters, or should it also be used on articles about current (or recent) accidents (e.g. oil refinery explosion) and man-made disasters? Black Falcon (Talk) 02:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

UCFD "in..."

Perhaps the recent "speedy close" for Wikipedians in ___ should have been changed to the Wikipedians in ___ metropolitan area, since other cats are doing that. Just a thought. —ScouterSig 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to discussions like this one ... I think another nomination would be appropriate to add "metropolitan area", since recent precedent for such categories is not consistent (see e.g. this or this). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Category inclusion

I disagree with your position of removing Kipelov and Master from Category:Aria (band). This is a commonplace in Wikipedia to include side projects and split-off bands into such categories. Just like Lionheart (band) and Gogmagog (band) in category: Iron Maiden, Feeling B in Category:Rammstein, and so on, and so on. Garret Beaumain (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As User:Otto4711 noted at the CFD discussion, including articles on split-off bands (incidentally, I think it's important to differentiate between a band that's truly a split-off and one that simply contains a former member of Aria) we "would end up with its own category with all of the same articles in them". Since the primary purpose of categories is to provide navigational utility beyond what is afforded by article text, I do not think such categorisation is warranted. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding Category

Black Falcon, a uses has been adding Categories that are not backed by WP:RS. This violated Category Guideline #8. Is my understanding in this wrong ? Please let me know. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the article in question? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is Ranjan Wijeratne. Watchdogb (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dehiwala train bombing Also does not cite for categorization. Watchdogb (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Were you in the process of addressing Ranjan Wijeratne on WT:SLR? If you are then you can take your time to comment on WT:SLR. I thought that you forgot about it. Watchdogb (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Yes, I had forgotten about the WT:SLR thread about Lakshman Algama and Ranjan Wijeratne. I will comment there. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear terrorism

I looked, and the category still seems useless to me. Adding a bunch of pages to the category to make it survive a CfD does not really solve this problem, especially when several of these things (e.g. "victims of radiological poisoning"? Jose Padilla??) don't really belong to the category at all. Anyway I'm not going to put up a fight about it since others want to keep the category, but it seems like a page topic to me, not a category. csloat (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, then ... let's let the CFD run its course. I'll remove some of the articles that don't belong. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Jose Padilla was accused of preparing a nuclear terrorism act.Biophys (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
No further comments per this ArbCom ruling. Biophys (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Jose Padilla was never charged with any "nuclear terrorism," nor was any evidence ever presented of such. No further comments per this ArbCom ruling. csloat (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for BLP's

Hi. Is MySpace an acceptable source for some non-controversial aspect of a BLP, like where they went to college? I know that generally it should not be used when a given MS page cannot be verified as the actual, official page of the author, but if the page contains personal photos that do not appear to be available to the general public or on Google, would that not indicate that it is the actual page belonging to that person? Also if this site gives the page as the official one of a cast member of The Real World or Road Rules, is it considered credible enough? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The BLP policy states that "material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if ... there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it". The presence of rare personal photos is one factor, but is itself not a guarantee that the MySpace page belongs to the subject of the article. I could try to offer a more informative response if you could specify which BLP (and MySpace page) is under discussion. (You could also seek input at the reliable sources noticeboard.) As for the blog, I was unable to identify to whom it belongs (or, at least, who claims it as their own). Is its ownership identified in a reliable source? Black Falcon (Talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the edit in question, in which the editor cited the MySpace page of Beth Stolarcyzk of The Real World: Los Angeles. This is the MySpace page that is allegedly hers that they cited. This is the site that gives the websites and MySpace pages of lots of alumni of The Real World and Road Rules, but I don't know how to ascertain its own reliability. Any ideas? Nightscream (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not sure about the MySpace page... on the whole, I don't think it should be given much (or any) weight. Her MTV biography and this Los Angeles Times article note that she is an "Ohio State graduate", but a LexisNexis news search for "Beth Stolarcyzk" yields two sources, including a personal interview, that indicate that she attended Ohio University rather than OSU. I think the issue may require further consideration or investigation but, again, don't think that the MySpace page should be given much weight. For the moment, I have replaced the MySpace link with citations to the two news sources. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for adding those sources to the article! Just out of curiosity, how did you find them, given that they're not online sources? Do you have access to some journalism database or something? If so, is it open to the public? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
LexisNexis. Many libraries offer access to the database (especially university libraries), but unfortunately it's not free to the public. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Template:Personality rights

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Personality rights. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I have offered my thoughts at the deletion review. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Opera singer categories

Hi. We communicated about category reform last month after you closed this cfd.

We've now moved forward with this on the Opera Project. I wonder if you can help us? There over 1,000 articles involved and I'm assuming you have the skills/machinery (AWB?) to process them.

Most opera singer articles are now in the following top level cats (numbers in parentheses):

We'd like to move the articles to specific 'operatic cats' - in line with Opera Project guidelines/discussions - as follows:

About 95 percent of the articles in the top level cats like Category:sopranos etc. are operatic - the others are a mixture of pop, folk, oratorio and other classical etc. I propose to weed these exceptions out by hand after the move and cat them appropriately. I know the opera singer articles quite well so this should not be too difficult.

What do you think? Is this a big bore, or is the move something you might be able to help us with?--Kleinzach (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For a straightforward move of all 1,026 articles, a bot probably would be quicker and more efficient than AWB. The task would take about 80-90 minutes with AWB (assuming a rate of about 12-13 edits per minute), while bots like Cydebot and BetacommandBot can reach 25 and 50 edits per minute, respectively. However, I could do the task with AWB if you think some degree of selectivity (i.e. human judgment) in performing the moves would be useful.
One possible problem with a bot run is that all of the moves would take place at once (I suppose you could ask the bot operator not to do all of the moves at once, but you might need to remind him/her a few times...); if you want to proceed (with the weeding out of exceptions) at a more relaxed pace, AWB would be suitable to the task. Also, if you would like to experiment with different methods, I could use AWB to that end.
Incidentally, do you think it would be easier to weed out exceptions after the move or to create a list of exceptions prior to the move, in which case you would need to check only the 1,026 articles in the first eight categories rather than the articles in all sixteen categories?
Please let me know your thoughts. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. All things being equal I think I'd prefer to do it with you/AWB - ideally one category at a time. That way we can be certain that it won't go wrong. (The Opera Project have worked quite a lot with SatyrBot in the past, but he has a big backlog at present including another job for us.) If that's OK I can start making a list of exceptions for Sopranos and let you know when it's complete? (Incidentally I'll need to re-categorize the exceptions after the move, because in most cases they won't go back into the top level category.) How does that sound? --Kleinzach (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I can think of two ways to proceed with AWB (either option is OK with me):
  1. Move all articles in a category, so that you can then recategorise the exceptions (I assume that most of them will be going into the nationality-specific categories).
  2. Move only those articles that are not on the list of exceptions -- those articles would be left in the top-level category and could be recategorised from there.
Please let me know when you want me to start (or, if you prefer the second option, post the list of exceptions somewhere -- feel free to use my personal sandbox, if you like) and I will start the AWB run. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I will be logging out shortly, but will be back in about 10 hours.
Thanks. Maybe Option 2? I've done the list of exceptions for the sopranos and put them in your sandbox. (I'll add the others soon). Any time convenient for you is OK - I'm in Japan . . . --Kleinzach (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll do a run for Category:Contraltos (the smallest category) right now and, if everything looks good to you, will proceed to doing the others as well. (I'm in Canada, by the way). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. What do you think? Black Falcon (Talk) 17:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Perfect! Ideal! Any time you want to do the other women is fine. I'll continue doing the male exceptions. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll start on the other two categories now. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Mezzo-sopranos is done. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Great. No problems.--Kleinzach (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The run for Category:Sopranos is done (it took this long because I didn't have access to my main computer - which has AWB installed - for most of April 3 and 4). I will move on to the categories for the male singers... Black Falcon (Talk) 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Tenors and Category:Countertenors - done. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been away - hence my slow response - but it all looks great, no problems. I hope you didn't have to do any of it without AWB. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's all been done using AWB, although it's been taking a little longer since I'm also making some other minor corrections to articles (e.g. defaultsorting, removing unnecessary link piping). I should be able to finish the remaining three categories today. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
All done! (By the way, should Kristinn Sigmundsson be in Category:Operatic basses or Category:Operatic bass-baritones?) Black Falcon (Talk) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Splendid, splendid! Great to get that all done and out of the way - and yes thanks for noticing Kristinn Sigmundsson who is a bass. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, then... Please feel free to let me know if there is another task on which I can help. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes

  1. I've edited your proposal a bit, and left a note on its talk page. (See also: Wikipedia:User categories, the intro may look semi-familiar : )
  2. Whoever (I haven't discovered who yet) did the work on Category:Wikipedians interested in television depopulated the subcats too. Would you help with finding them?

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, nevermind the second, it seems that it's User:Lady Aleena acting contrary to the closure. I'll revert for now. If it continues, perhaps someone will have to request protection. - jc37 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the first issue, I think you may be right. Many of the categories ("all-inclusive", "overly narrow scope", "not-based") concern issues of overcategorisation rather than WP:NOT. I've responded at the talk page. As for the second issue, I'll comment at the newly-opened UCFD. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a fair amount of structuring and linkifying, and just general cleanup of text of both pages. Curious as to what you think. - jc37 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been checking my watchlist very much in the past few days and so had missed quite a bit of this... Looking over the new structure, I think it's excellent!
The lack of a single page to provide guidance for user categorisation has been an issue for many months (definitely since I became active at UCFD, and perhaps even before), and I think your decision to split out relevant content from Wikipedia:Userboxes to a page that essentially serves as a "central hub" for guidance related to user categories was definitely a good one. Moreover, both pages seem to function as extensions of a larger set of guidelines regarding categorisation -- I think this too has been a problem at UCFD, as sometimes manifested in confusion regarding "userboxes versus user categories" (e.g. what functions each has, how UCFD discussions will affect each) and "self-identification versus self-categorisation".
Overall, great job! I hope that there will be support for adoption of Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories as a guideline, and that the combination of the two pages will help to make UCFD somewhat less stressful. :)
Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. With regard to your comment here, I think it could be worked in, though I'd like to take a more detailed look at LA's proposal first.
Thanks : )
I solved a few issues through transclusion (the intro to both pages, and the UCFD links, for example)
I also originally retained Wikipedia:User categories transcluded at Wikipedia:Userboxes. But finally decided that it should be linked and not transcluded. I tried to minimise how much is actually at the userboxes page, in the hopes the editors will actually click the link.
Also, some credit should go to User:Trialsanderrors (and User:Quarl, who apparently did the initial split)) from what I learned about splitting guidelines when Wikipedia:Canvassing was split from Wikipedia:Spam.
Anyway, if you have the time or inclination, please give them a thorough "going over". (Many eyes typically means fewer errors and greater clarity...)
Thanks again : ) - jc37 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do... By the way, I noticed that you transcluded the introduction to both pages, but to what "UCFD links" are you referring? Black Falcon (Talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/See also - so much nicer to transclude that than to try to replicate the links. I've also created a short cut now. (WP:UCFD/SA) Though now I wonder if I should have used "links" rather than "see also"... I guess it doesn't matter all that much : ) - jc37 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Gavin Walsh

Good work! ... discospinster talk 03:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nomination - Template:Disclaimer-military

Received notice of your deletion nomination for this template and courses of action available to me. Accordingly, I have removed the {{deprecated}} tag pending discussion, and posted my objection at Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_and_orphaned_templates#Objections. I would appreciate your further thoughts, as well as others. Thank you for the courtesy of a heads-up.    ¥    Jacky Tar  05:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have commented at the talk page. In light of your explanation, I agree that speedy deletion is not the appropriate course of action. Thank you (for the explanation and your notice here), Black Falcon (Talk) 05:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Max Meili category change

I note that you changed the category for Max Meili from "tenors" to "operatic tenors," together with an admonition to "report mistakes here." I'm not sure that the change is a "mistake," exactly; he did participate in some opera performances, as far as I can tell mostly of Monteverdi's L'Orfeo, although they included creating a role in one contemporary work. Thus, when putting the article together I reasoned that he fell within the scope of the opera project, however tangentially. Nonetheless, he was an early music specialist, and as such fundamentally much more of a concert than an operatic singer. I'll freely admit that choosing categories is probably the thing I do worst on Wikipedia--I invariably seem to miss one or more or to append something inappropriate, and just trying to navigate the various lists of available categories always seems to leave me tied up in mental knots--but I'm wondering if, in this case, the change might call for a second look? My apologies for making bother! [PS, added as an edit: if you haven't heard him and can play 78s, I'd strongly recommend searching out the Victor set of lute songs; categories aside, I think he had one of the loveliest lyric tenor voices of his day.] Drhoehl (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's no bother at all... :)
After looking in more detail at the article and related sources, I cannot be sure... On the one hand, he is an opera singer; on the other, sources specifically note that he rarely participated in opera and is better-known as a concert and oratorio singer. Since opera is not my speciality and I am doing the recategorisation of "tenors" to "operatic tenors" on request of WikiProject Opera (see here for details), I have asked another user (User:Kleinzach - who initiated the linked discussion) to comment. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I haven't heard him, but I've always had a fondness for lute songs. If I'm able to find his music, I may take your recommendation...
Thanks to Drhoehl for his comment. Singer cat reform is a long process and much remains to be done. Black Falcon has been helping me with the opera singer cats, putting operatic tenors etc. labels on all those who made a notable contribution to opera - which would seem to include Max Meili.
At the moment oratorio, orchestral song, lieder etc all come under the Classical music project. I'm a participant in this, but as far as I know no work has been done on a category structure for extra-opera singers, although a number of people have made suggestions. (If you wanted to take this on yourself I'd be happy to provide more information - I know where most of the other 'concert' singers are!) Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that the category shift was appropriate in light of how the category is interpreted. Thanks to both of you for taking the time and trouble to double check! As to setting up a structure for non-operatic voice categories, although I'm not sure I'm really all that well qualified, I won't say "no," but "maybe"--just not for a little while, as I contemplate a trip out of town shortly and in the meantime have my hands full trying to tame List of classical pianists and Classical pianists (recorded), which had fallen into a real mess. I've copied all the names between the lists that appeared in only one place when they should, at least arguably, have appeared in both, but the "general" list is sadly lacking in pre-20th-century names, and it's to that task that I've now turned my attention. (I'll copy this to Kleinzach's talk page to spare him checking here.) Drhoehl (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll reply on your userpage. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User categories relating to media and genres

Black Falcon...You are invited to discuss a guideline for the naming and organization of user categories that involve media and genres. - LA @ 10:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Privacy and other concerns

Can you kindly look into the privacy concerns in this update by User:Bodhi dhana as well as WP:NPA on line item 1. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the part in question and left a comment at User talk:Bodhi dhana#Talk:Sri Lankan placename etymology. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, can you move over redirect per this please. The new name should be Tamil British which is better cited. Taprobanus (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a clarification: should the new name be Tamil British or British Tamils? Both are redirects to the article, both are mentioned at the discussion to which you linked, and examples of both styles exist (e.g. Pakistani British and British Indian). Black Falcon (Talk) 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Falcon/Archive_7&oldid=1141485849"