User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

1990 Batticaloa massacre

Can you comment on the removal of sources from this article. Thanks Taprobanus 17:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#Classification of sources, TamilNet is a "questionable source" which should be used with explicit attribution. I'm a little unsure about the appropriateness of removal in this case. On the one hand, the TamilNet citations seem to be merely supporting statements already attributed to other sources, so removing them has little or no negative effect. On the other hand, if the content of the TamilNet article is supported by other sources, that could be an argument against removal. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I cut and paste your comment in the article talk page ? Taprobanus 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Greek Agate

Ok I rewrote the Greek Agate article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate Can you please look at it and edit it? I change alot of the word. Thanks! Neptunekh 03:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

How you doing Mr Black_Falcon ? First of all congrats for electing as an administrator! I just noticed your promotion ^_^ .. Ok, lets get back to the point, I saw your name in the edit history of the pawn-farm massacre article hence chose to write this here. There are several citations from a dubious book, which was written in a heavily bias way. I had the opportunity to read this book last year, and having seen this book is heavily promoted in tamil racist web-sites, I think there are serious questions regarding the neutrality of this book. This author giving an impression that tamils were treated like jews during the Nazi rule, which is both laughable and incorrect.If anything It was the Sinhalese and Muslims who suffered most on the hands of LTTE, and this person mysteriously missing those ! His figures(casualty) are mainly taken from the pro-tamil merdia or LTTE and can be easily disputed. And some of the figures he gives differs from other human right organizations.This is a blatantly bias book and I strongly oppose using such here. Thanks Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Even worse

The other book source given there is more worse and it is pure propagandic work. Please take a look at the following link to see the real face of the sponsors of the book. here. It seems like a lecture given at a conference organize by some pro-LTTE groups. I don't think wikipedia should be allowed for cheap LTTE-propagandic stuff.Thanks. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hi Iwazaki. Thanks for your congratulations. Let me state in advance that I've not read the book and so cannot comment on it personally. However, I will do my best to comment on it from the perspective of relevant Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices:

Is the source a reliable source?

Although the contents of the book are controversial even off-wiki, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, the publisher, is a respected one as far as I can tell. In addition, the book has received positive reviews from Library Journal, Kirkus Reviews (see the Amazon.com entry), and a number of others (see Talk:Prawn farm massacre#Is McGovern a racist?). Though, having not read the book, I can neither agree nor disagree with your opinion about it, your position would be strengthened if you could provide reliable sources to support your claims that the book is biased and/or misleading.

How should the source be used?

If a statement is biased, WP:NPOV requires that it be removed or explicitly attributed. That may involve adding a clarifying footnote or something to the effect of "According to McGowan (1992), ...". Of course, you will first need to demonstrate that the source is biased by verifying your claims through reference to reliable sources. In the absence of supporting sources, your evaluation of the book is a personal review and original research. The fact that TamilCanadian endorses the book does not really prove much, especially considering that many others have endorsed it as well. If they had published it, that'd be a different matter ...

In looking at the revision history of Prawn farm massacre, I'm a little unsure why you've repeatedly removed the citation without removing some of the content sourced by it. If you have nothing against the content, I really don't see a point to removing the source (unless you can offer an alternative).

I hope that you will find my evaluation useful. As this is the second time I've been asked to comment on this issue and as there is also currently an active request for page protection for the article, I will also post this comment on the article's talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your neutral opinion, I also found a book to cite Prof Trawick's material. Thansk againTaprobanus 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But as usual it has been reverted too. Thanks :)))Taprobanus 15:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It has become a habbit

Reverting without any comments. In the article Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, this revert was done without any comments. Number of RS sources were removed. Before I ask for edit protection and RFC on the conduct of the editor. I would like your opinionTaprobanus 14:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing seriously wrong with the section that would justify its wholesale removal. Although one can make a case that it needs to be reordered, contextualized differently, and/or balanced with opposite opinions, the information itself is stated neutrally and reliably sourced. I would suggest only two changes:

1. The sentence "Experts, such as Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, have termed ..." may need to be reworded as it gives the impression that all or most experts agree with Tambiah's evaluation. This may indeed be the case, but it would have to be supported by a source. I think something like "Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, a leading social anthropologist at Harvard University, has termed ..." is more neutral and still conveys the idea that Tambiah's opinion is an expert one.
2. At some point, the article should also cover responses to these various allegations (perhaps in a separate section) so as to ensure neutrality. Of course, this is another matter and does not justify deleting a whole (sourced) section. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks seems to be more people are looking into it, prawn farm massacre deletuion was restored so was the above mass deletion. On an different note what do you think of this series of personal attack as an admin ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taprobanus (talk • contribs).

I commented at the ANI thread. Iwazaki's comments are not outright personal attacks (except perhaps the "sockpuppet" comment), but they are still out of line. I think the warning given to him Lexicon is appropriate. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being supportive of the project, a new concern regarding WP:STALK has been raised based on another editor in the same ANI ? Unfortunately people are not reading policies properly and admin intervention or WP:OVERSIGHT is needed. Thanks Taprobanus 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more a case of a bad choice than stalking. I'd normally delete the page and restore everything but that one edit, but WP:AN/I has nearly 150000 revisions in its history, and deleting it might create performance issues. I think you should submit a request for oversight so that the revision is hidden from view. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

fyi - just so you know, the article in question was indeed "State terrorism in Sri Lanka" before I moved it myself. That is the kind of POV pushing that Taprobanus and his pals have been indulging in and it is galling to see him attempt to appropriate the moral high ground. Sarvagnya 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV notification for Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this.   — The Storm Surfer 00:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg

Hi. Jayjg's tantrums on the talk page seem extraordinarily ridiculous to me. He seems to be saying that, if the title of the article is "XYZ", then every citation in the article ought to have the term/phrase "XYZ". This is patent nonsense in my opinion. A citation should only be used to support what is written in the article and the citaitons he's removing do exactly that. Can you please comment on the talk page. Thanks. Sarvagnya 03:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

If those who're alleging state terrorism are not referring to the SL govt's handling of the LTTE/civil war, then what are they referring to? You tell me. Even from the citations given in the "Viewpoints" section, its clear that they're referring to the civil war. The lead just summarises that. Sarvagnya 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I added the {{fact}} tag is that the words 'state terrorism' are put in quotes and quotes must always be cited (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). If the quotation marks were put there mistakenly, they (and then the tag) should be removed. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Then all you had to do is remove the quotes and wikilink it yourself or simply say what you just said above in your edit summary. Anyway, the reason I had used quotes there was because there's a grey area here. "State Terrorism" is a very loosely defined term. We're not even sure that every author who alleges "state terrorism" is talking about the same thing. While we ponder about that, I'll go ahead, remove the quotes and wikilink it to state terrorism. Sarvagnya 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please have discussions on article content on the article Talk: pages, so everyone can participate. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kyo & Michael Maclear

Kyo Maclear's novel includes her biography, which notes that Michael Maclear is her father. Please restore this comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.79.52 (talk • contribs).

Would you please provide the citation for that (i.e., the number of the page on which that information is found)? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR Case

Could you have a look on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Watchdogb reported by User:Lahiru_k .28Result:.29. After I noted the note on top of the page I decided to stay silent and let admins to have a decision. Since no one wants to read the case, I decided to let you know. I don't mind if you want to move the discussion to a user talkpage even. I know that you will come to reasonable decision. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust in my judgment. My take on the issue is that Watchdogb's argument that the removal of the tag is just cleanup is inapplicable since the presence of the tag was itself a matter of dispute. However, I concur with Lotlil that there is no technical violation of 3RR (edits 2 and 3 are consecutive and so counted as one revert). I think the best option at this point is full protection of the page to allow for discussion. In the absence of proof that the article can be substantially improved, I'm beginning to think that a merge might be a good solution. As I've been involved in editing the article, I'll leave the protection to someone else (the 3RR case was just archived). Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no worries Falcon, Then what do you think about its sister case? I mean Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive54#User:Snowolfd4_reported_by_User:Jayjg_.28Result:48h.29? Snowolfd4 blocked just for fixing typo. Have deep look on the case. Jayjg filed the case 06:09, 29 July, Snowolf gave the comment 06:17. Snowolf blocked 06:20, warn given 06:21, blocking admin replied 06:23, Jayjg filed the ANI case 06:24. Alex hadn't taken part in any 3RR cases recently but suddenly came and blocked him for 48 hours ignoring 2 previous 3RR cases and then when back to editing articles.

But I filled the case at 00:49, 30 July and the last comment was made on 05:24, 30 July. Archived on 11:48, July 30. It was ran about 11 hours but no one wants to have a look there. But in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive54#User:Snowolfd4_reported_by_User:Jayjg_.28Result:48h.29 blocking admin was soo hurry to made his judgment. See how the wiki justice serve to the different parties in different ways. I'm really disappointed. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Snowolfd4's case was handled so quickly, but he made 4-5 content reverts (depending on how you count). These three reverts concerned the introduction, and this one concerned the "Reactions" section. This one may or may not be construed as a grammatical fix, but it's not all that relevant since 3RR was already passed. I wasn't aware of any AN/I case, but it seems to have been archived in any case. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the edit indeed was cleanup. There is no point in having 2 tags that would say "This article is disputed". Thugh I do admit that the edit summery was not proper. In realiy I did want to see why that section was disputed so that I can add that. However, I am sure opinions are harde to change and I do not mind. Watchdogb 01:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

rm - I'm not your sock puppet, I've already been falsely accused and blocked for being someone else's sock puppet, I'm still on probation for that (unfairly) and your comments here [1] are just going to get me blocked again. (I'm referring to your original response to Ian Lee's comment - I realise he's edited his comment since - please would you edit yours so its consistent - thanks). Kelpin 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would confuse that as proof of sockpuppetry, especially considering Ian Lee's "Woops" comment. However, I've stricken the comment just in case. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD closure

Hi, the Cat:Gay Wikipedians CfD discussion you recently closed is not noted on Category talk:Gay Wikipedians, and when if use the "cfdend" template it does not link to the archive properly. Is there another template that will work, or is the discussion somehow archived in the wrong place? Thanks TAnthony 15:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The {{cfdend}} template does not work because it is not suited to UCfD archives (it points automatically to the CfD daily logs). I think the easiest way to record the discussion on the talk page is to simply add a messagebox (based on "cfdend") and manually specify the location, as I've done here. UCfD nominations that result in a keep are often not recorded because it's relatively easy to uncover any previous nominations by looking through the revision history and seeing in what month a category was nominated for deletion. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the fix; I'm obviously not familiar enough with the cfd-related templates to know the proper workaround. And the only reason I care is because this and related categories have been nominated a lot lately (and again today) and I want to preserve previous discussions. TAnthony 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominated again? I hadn't checked the UCFD page yet, but after looking at it, it seems this nomination is heading toward a "keep" result as well. As for preserving discussions, I can understand your point. It's much easier to simply have a link to previous discussions than to dig through archives to find why a category was kept in the past. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

UTHR

UTHR is a very neutral source. I will provide some links for you to decide your self

• [2]
• [3]. Here they are called "Leading righs body"
• [4] Uthr reported abuses by LTTE]
• [5] If anythin UTHR is a anti-LTTE source.
• [6] More people using UTHR.

I think you can make up your mind if this source is RS or not based on this. Thanks Watchdogb 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I also did a little searching and found various other links (all from reliable sources) that all suggest that the UTHR is a neutral and reliable source.

• PBS Frontline: UTHR "has published scathing reports detailing human-rights abuses in Sri Lanka", including criticism of the LTTE
• BBC: "a prominent Tamil human rights groups accused the Tamil Tigers ..."
• Chronicle of Higher Education: "The University Teachers for Human Rights is the only remaining Tamil Human-Rights group critical of the Tiger leadership."
• International Herald Tribune: "an independent Sri Lankan advocacy group"

Would you mind if I copied this thread to Talk:Prawn farm massacre? Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

UTHR may be a 'notable' and 'reliable' source. But the question is, should we be treating the views of human rights organisations as 'neutral'? Should we be passing them off as 'uninvolved', 'neutral', 'dispassionate', 'mainstream' opinion? I think not. I think their opinions are worth a mention, but I'd rather we do it under a section like ===Reaactions of Human righs orgs=== where we can lump together the opinions of all notable and bonafide HROs covering the issue. Sarvagnya 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think we should assume that human rights organisations are inherently non-neutral? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When I said they werent 'neutral' I didnt mean that HROs are inherently either pro/anti-this or pro/anti-that. What I meant was that their reporting would certainly be coloured by the number of 'humans'/'innocents' killed or maimed. That is their bottomline. Because HROs by their very 'mission statements' see everthing through the prism of human rights. Governments on the other hand usually have a holistic look and are resigned to the fact that there's always going to be 'collateral' damage; that there's always going to be some 'innocents' that are going to lose life and limb.

Both look at it from different ends(assign different weights to different aspects of the situation) and that is the reason neither can be considered truly NPOV. This is where the 'media' comes in. Here again, we can have 'avowedly' partisan media like tamilnet, tamilnation, uthayan etc., on one side and maybe few on the other side too. But then there's the 'mainstream' media - like the BBC, the Indian media, Reuters, CNN etc., who all cover the conflict widely; are 'uninvolved', 'removed', posess impeccable credentials and have a 'reputation' and can be reasonably assumed not to be 'emotionally invested' in the reporting. And if you observe, the mainstream media almost never mentions a HRO 'finding' without explicitly saying that it is a HRO 'finding'.

So imo, partisan sources should be strictly kept out; HRO sources shouldnt be given undue weight and the article should be written only with the help of 'mainstream' sources. All establishment of 'notability' should strictly be only through 'mainstream' sources and HRO sources should come into the picture only after notability has been established. HROs, by their very nature are wont to give undue weight to 'visible' human suffering in their reportage. But an encyclopedia works differently and we shouldnt really be using HRO sources for establishing notability nor should we be passing their view as a 'disinterested', 'neutral' opinion. Sarvagnya 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. By your logic, every source is tainted. HRO sources are written from the prism of human rights. Government sources are written from the prism of preserving power. News sources are written from the prism of increasing sales. I agree, of course, that the opinions of HROs should be explicitly attributed (e.g., "According to the HRO, ..."), but you're mixing statements of opinion with statements of fact. We can accept statements of fact from reliable HROs. HROs may give undue weight to visible human suffering, but that's not the same as lying about casualty figures or the like. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If its only 'facts and figures', it really is not that much of an issue. We can always say, "...the Govt., said x people died, HRO said 2x died, BBC reported that 1.5x died..." and be done with it. The issue is when somebody starts piling on a coatrack by using HRO sources to establish notability. For HROs, every killing and every rape is a big deal. Yes. It is a big deal. So is every chicken butchered - if you asked PETA. The question is, is it encyclopedic? I think not. A killing or a rape doesnt become 'encyclopedic' simply because it happens in a war zone. Some of the 'cause celebres'(incidentally every one of them seems to be Tamil) of the Sri Lankan war wouldnt stand a chance of having an article in Enc. B'nnica in a million years. Apart from notablility, the other issue is with filling entire articles with "HROs said this.. HROs said that.. HROs called it ethnic cleansing.. HROs called it genocide.. HROs called it terrorism..". Also comparing HROs with news sources is not fair. Even though news sources make money, they also have editorial boards and reasonably well defined journalistic standards/methods, regulatory bodies etc.,. If a wider sampling of mainstream articles and not just a collage of partisan sources and HROs (in the guise of NPOV and 'balance') can be used to cite these articles many of the problems would vanish. Sarvagnya 22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I partly agree. Most of the incidents that human rights organisation write reports about are not notable. However, if enough HROs (especially notable, reliable HROs) write about an incident, indicating that they consider it noteworthy, then that incident meets our inclusion criteria. However, I don't see how what you've written above is relevant to the Prawn farm massacre article. That incident clearly is notable and the UTHR source is used only to support 1-2 sentences. I also want to reiterate my belief that I think you discount HRO sources too much; governments are not always honest reporters of the truth as you suggested in your initial comment ("a holistic look"). I agree that mainstream sources are necessary to write an article, but don't agree with your assumption that HRO sources are inherently more partisan that news or government sources (some HROs are and some aren't). Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You can paste this in the talk page. I should have done that insted. I am sorry for not doing that. Human rights organisations are NPOV. Specially one like UTHR which shows violations by both sides. If we were to have them in its own header then we should NEVER say who are suspected to have done the violation in the Lead, Background and incident. Following that logic by Sarvagnya we should have a section ===Suspect=== and then we should have another subheader saying suspected by, reaction to suspecion and much, much more. Watchdogb 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

XfD's

Hi, I'm just curious why you nominate so many articles and templates for deletion. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't, really. The 25 or so templates I nominated in the past two days are the exception, rather than the rule. I'm just clearing through a few categories of unused and/or unnecessary templates. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply, I'm trying to save the template, I mean he starred in these films. Why not delete the one for Al Pacino? Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding it to many pages won't save it, since I've also nominated for deletion templates with dozens of transclusions. Moreover, the template is not worth saving. Yes, he starred in the films ... but there's no reason for the filmography of every actor in a film to appear on that film's page. There is no connection between those films except one actor out of dozens. Also, the Pacino template is nominated for deletion as well (not by me, though). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty helpful, I think a moviegoer such as myself would enjoy seeing some of the actors other works. I just don't think you should be so trigger-happy on nominating SO many things for deletion is all. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's an article about the film, not the actor. If you want information about the actor's other works, all you have to do is click the link to their article. Also, I am not trigger-happy ... these types of templates have been consistently deleted and I'm merely clearing a backlog that others had not paid attention to for a few months. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I seemed rude or anything. If I did come off like a jerk please accept my apologies. Thanks. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No apologies needed, I assure you. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notfying me of the TFD on Audrey Hepburn. I completely reject the rationale behind the nomination however. Are you trying to say that no catgorizing of actors is to be allowed on Wikipedia? We already went through this song and dance about a year ago when Wikipedia banned "Films by actor" categories and we were all told to create templates. Or is this just another example of how Wikipedia is an unstable community that cannot make up it's mind about anything? 23skidoo 12:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorising of actors is certainly allowed. However, there is no reason that for the article Cold Mountain to mention that Nicole Kidman also starred in The Stepford Wives. And it most definitely doesn't need to mention the complete filmography of every single actor with an article. Actor filmographies belong in the actors' articles (or a separate "filmography" article). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sivasubramaniam Raveendranath

Hello Black Falcon, In the above article the views of Scholars At Risk has been removed number of times without proper reasons. I am looking for a third opinion. Thanks Taprobanus 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have modified the article (diff) in a way that, I think, largely addresses the issue. I can understand Sarvagnya's objection regarding undue weight, but believe it should be solved through the addition of content (e.g. reactions by the police) rather than removal. I've merged the individual sections and placed everything under a "Reactions" heading, which is itself a subsection of a "Kidnapping" section (the article should ideally present a full biography and not just coverage of the kidnapping). Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Great job, sorry for getting you involved in these situations. Now the Lead is being modified but not according to WP:LEAD. Thanks Taprobanus 22:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem. I don't see any significant change in the lead ... could you point it out please? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the article now please? Some users are trying to censor wikipeida specially the lead. He disappeared in a High Security Zone. It is important to say that he was indeed abducted at a High Security Zone because that is exactly where he was abducted. Cited material is also removed in the latest edit. Please have a look. Thanks Watchdogb 04:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I also can give citation that says he was abducted in a High Security Zone which was heavily guarded by Army and Police. Which is from Human Rights Watch. Watchdogb 04:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be better to say that "TMVP is suspected behind this abduction" in the lead ? AI and UTHR have both blamed the TMVP for this. The citation also says that there is widespread consensus that this was done by TMVP Watchdogb 14:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason that the article shouldn't note that he disappeared in a high-security zone. As for the latter issue, it's better to avoid a statement like "X is suspected" in favour of an attributed statement like "Y suspects X". I hope that helps. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will find statements that say "X is suspected" and change it to "Y suspects X". Thank again. Watchdogb 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Africa and fp

You are welcome to apply for Featured Portal status around September as it looks fine. Best, feydey 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recommendations for fixing up the portal. I'm curious about one thing: what is the purpose of delaying the nomination? Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

The category has been deleted please close the discussion. SLSB talk • contrib 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Free Images

Where can I find a list of free images? Considering Mario was deleted off my userbox. Thanks and please respond on my talk. SLSB talk • contrib 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sutherland movies

Template was replaced in the same place, it was vandalized without reason. A complete filmiography article was created, Thanks. Parallel33 —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Some users are removing RS citations and information. Can you please have a look thanks Watchdogb 01:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC).

After some thought, I have proposed a merge to Human rights in Sri Lanka, in part because the "Allegations of ..." article seems doomed to be eternally the subject of disputes. Perhaps relocating the content to a more neutral title (and refocusing it as needed) will take care of some issues. I will take a look at the two articles you noted below shortly. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you also take a look at Vaharai Bombing Where citation from HRW report is taken off and said it is dubious. Just because someone does not agree with what a RS says does not make it UnRS. Please take a look as an edit war is sure to break out. Further can you also take a look at Allaipiddy massacre article. In the Allaipiddy massacre I used a citation that has been used by HRW itself and some users seem to think it is UnRS. Please clarify things. Thanks Watchdogb 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the reply and suggestion. I will sleep on this issue and reply on the necessary page. Watchdogb 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC). PS I am sorry for always coming to you when problem arise in SL related articles. However, you are one of the people who knows the SL conflict to a reasonable level. This is primarily the reason for always coming to you. Thanks Watchdogb 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem ... I'm more than happy to help when I can. Civil conflict is one of my primary interests and the SL conflict is, after Africa and political science, one of my main areas of editing. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful neutral work at Allaipiddy massacre. Thanks for the clean up. Watchdogb 22:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka is tagged with POV and the the concern raised is taken care of. However, some users claim that this article exist from "cherry picked" sources. Can you please comment on this issue on the article's talk page ? Thanks Watchdogb 18:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Non-wikipedians who disrupted wikipedia to make a point

Category:Non-wikipedians who disrupted wikipedia to make a point: it is a blacklist, if you wish to call it so. We do have categories for, eg. sockpuppetteers. It is not invasion into privacy, per GFDL license. It belongs to the history of wikipedia. It is valid and interesting topic of research on how people tried and failed to mess with wikipedia. However I myself came to a conclusion that category is meaningless here. A commented list makes much more sense. `'Míkka 17:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:List of editors who disrupted Wikipedia to make a point outside Wikipedia. `'Míkka 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving notability discussion here

On Wikipedia_talk:Notability, you said "I don't know whether the people starting articles on episodes of the The Simpsons ask themselves that ["has this episode received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?"], but if they don't, they should."

First, I agree that according to the notability guideline, they should ask themselves that question. So I'm not discussing what the policies and guidelines actually say here. I want to ask you about what you think should happen or should be the case.

People are clearly writing articles about new episodes of The Simpsons as a matter of course, and when you look at a random episode (I chose this one: Grift_of_the_Magi), there's no evidence of notability. The two external links are to, essentially, topic-specific encyclopedias. And of course this makes sense: how often would an individual episode of The Simpsons receive significant coverage?

So, my first question: would you like to see people stop writing articles about new episodes of The Simpsons?

But there are now pages for every episode of The Simpsons. Maybe not the most recent ones, but my point is that none are missing in the middle. What the Wikipedians have created is an encyclopedic coverage of The Simpsons. They've done a great job, in my opinion.

So my second question is this, ignoring the actual work involved in removing such pages from Wikipedia (including fixing references), and ignoring the obvious contentiousness, would you like to see the episodes that are not notable removed from Wikipedia?

I guess you could wonder why I'm asking these questions. I guess I really am trying to understand what Notability means to the Wikipedia community.

-- BenBildstein 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to your first question: not necessarily (I'll explain more below). I would, however, like them to spend more effort on improving existing articles about the series and its characters and seasons, or to write better episode articles that do not contain only in-universe information.

In response to your second question: not particularly. If by "removed" you mean "deleted", then no. I do, however, support merging short articles into "list of episodes" pages (though I dislike the heavy-handed approach of redirecting episode pages en masse without discussion). In general, I don't oppose the inclusion of episode articles that can provide even a little out-of-universe information beyond the basics contained in Template:Infobox Television episode.

I don't think every episode of every TV series ought to have its own article (at most, a redirect). Still, I consider myself more inclusionist when it comes to episode articles as opposed to other types of articles. The reason is completeness of coverage: episode articles are effectively subpages of the main article on the TV series. Though I don't subscribe to the notion of "notability by association", I view the creation of episode articles and "list of episodes" pages as largely editorial decisions regarding the organisation of content. However, in following that point of view, we go back to my first point: in order to justify the splitting of content (i.e. the creation of articles on subtopics), the main article(s) must be improved and expanded first.

As you can probably discern, my personal position does not perfectly match a strict reading of Wikipedia:Notability. However, I think it tries to find a balance between the requirements of the notability guidelines, completeness of coverage, and editorial discretion when it comes to organising content.

I don't know that my response can provide an answer to the question of "what notability means to the Wikipedia community" as there are many who disagree with me and who believe every separate article should prove its own notability, though that may partly be a backlash against the proliferation of low-quality episode articles (few are sourced or contain anything but a plot summary). However, I hope that it at least elucidates my position. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding impolite, for most editors (administrators) here, it is a moving target.

Unfortunately, the idea of improving or embellishing on a topic, person, or article, has given way to an instant delete syndrome. The concept of adding to information the world can get to is now taking a "back seat" to a destructive force within our ranks. That force, or cabal, will persist and grow if allowed the freedom to multiply. Everywhere I go, someone is quick to block before being willing to listen. We will certainly not open accounts. The accounts all become accused of being puppets. BTW, when is a falcon not black? 222.171.190.72 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a certain over-reliance on deletion as a cleanup tool. This is particularly evident when editors start nominations for articles without first seeking to improve them (or at least checking, via a Google search, whether improvement is possible). However, the opposite also exists: there are those who frequently insist on the retention of articles without improving them or, at times, without even checking whether they can be improved. Though both are harmful, I'm not sure I'd label either one of these modi operandi as a force or cabal.

I'm unaware of the circumstances of any blocks or accusations of sockpuppetry you may have encountered, so I can't comment on that.

Finally: Brown Falcon. :)

— Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

So there are those that nominate articles for deletion to readily, and those that unreasonably resist deletion. I see so many people unhappy about deletion that I really do believe it is a problem, though it's not a problem I've been effected by. My worry is that good quality encyclopedic content is being removed because it is placed in non-notable topics. I am actually pro-deletion when it comes to unsatisfactory content. But I'd much rather see good content in a non-notable page than both deleted.

Not that you needed a position statement from me :) -- BenBildstein 11:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing note on Category: Citizens of the Milky Way

ROFL! That is one of the funniest closing notes I have ever read. Bravo. Horologium t-c 16:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Proofreaders al-en

Thanks a lot for closing those. I can't believe I forgot about CSD C1. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

UCFD noms for language cats

You have suggested deleting all of the language cats I nominated (a move which I fully support), but I have not tagged the "parent" cats (the merge targets for each of the cats under discussion). Should I do so, to include them in the discussion? I'd hate for them to go to DRV because of wikilawyering over cats which were not included in the discussion getting nuked.

BTW, I will be submitting more tonight; several more English subcats for deletion, some -N cats for constructed languages, and a bunch of renames to conform to ISO 639 naming conventions. I didn't want to submit 20 nominations or so all in one day, so I split it up a little. I still have dozens of cats to go through (I've finished the ISO 639-1 languages, but I am only through the "D"s on ISO 639-3 list). There are a couple of real doozies out there, and I fear that the last round of deletions/merges I plan to propose will be quite contentious. (There are political overtones to some of the cats, dating back to the cold war.) Horologium t-c 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. On the one hand, it would be nice to do away with all of the categories at once. On the other, including the parent categories will make the discussion more contentious and may yield a "no consensus" result (I'd rather see the subcats merged into their parents than that), so it may be worth waiting until these discussions are closed to nominate the parent categories. I really can't say which is the better option.

More generally, I had no idea that Category:Wikipedians by language included so many needless levels. I'd always thought of that category as organised and precise. Go figure. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was well-organized when it was originally set up, but you forget how easy it is to create stupid, useless categories for userboxen, which was why I was so eager to totally dissociate all categories from userboxen and create some type of system to approve adding them back in. I was slapped down when I proposed it at Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#A radical proposal, so I stopped suggesting it. I still think it's a good idea, but it doesn't have the required support.

There are a few single-layer User en-xx cats that I left out of the discussion (en-ms, for Malaysia and en-sa, for South Africa, that can be revisited if we decide to kill the parent categories, but for now I'll let them sit quietly, as they are not ridiculously subcategorized like many of the others. Horologium t-c 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I just wanted to let you know that I have consolidated most of the "national" variations of English categories into a single nomination, at the request of After Midnight, who seems to get the thankless task of closing all of the UCFD discussions.(I left out Australian, because its discussion thread is different because of some of the issues behind that category). Consequently, I removed several of your comments and retained just the last one. Your comments for each appeared to be substantially similar for each, so I hope that is not an issue. Ordinarily I don't refactor or remove another editor's comments, but I understood AM's frustration at the 30-some nominations (and closure actions) my actions had generated. AM and I discussed it on my talk page, under the heading "UCFD" (I only have three topics in on my talk page right now, so no direct link). Horologium t-c 13:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for letting me know. As far as I can recall, my comments were identical, considering that essentially the same issues apply to all. Cheers, — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

0RR

Just wanted to say, away from the 'thesis that anyone can edit' that is the RfArb, that your comment on 0RR [7] is essentially important, and hits one of the main nails on the head. Nicely put. Splash - tk 22:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks Taprobanus 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by birth year

Would you have any problems/concerns with splitting your nom into two: One for the decades, and one for the individual years? - jc37 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean removing the six "decades" categories from the nomination and starting a new nomination for them, then ... I don't exactly have a problem with it, but I don't really see the point, since neither classification fosters collaboration. Moreover, there is already a precedent for deleting by-decade categories (the deletion of the "in their xx's categories", which was upheld at deletion review). Is there a particular reason that you think the two should be considered separately? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were to renominate I would vote to delelte the decade cats as uselss information but I remains committed to voting keep re the year cats, SqueakBox 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think sqeakbox illustrated quite nicely why the two should be considered separately. : ) - jc37 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth raising this issue in the discussion to let the closing admin decide. Given how many people have participated, it's not really my nomination anymore. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the closure

Thanks for catching this. I was trying to correct the previous version, which stated: "the result of the debate was result", but apparently made a mistake of my own. Thanks again, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I've replied to your question at my talk page.

No problem. I was thinking about fixing it myself, but hadn't yet decided if it was worth worrying about. Though it's not required, one of us should probably drop a note on After Midnight's talk page, just to let them know. - jc37 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DOT

Some of the templates are ready to be deleted. Do you have any suggestions for an edit summary? Also, should a log of some sort be kept of templates that have been deleted through WP:DOT? Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

CSD G6 (housekeeping): orphaned and deprecated template, tagged with {{deprecated}} for 14 days without objection

or

Housekeeping: orphaned and deprecated template, tagged with {{deprecated}} for 14 days without objection (CSD G6)

I don't know how feasible a log is, considering the number of pages that might eventually be deleted under WP:DOT. By the way, is there any general way of tracking when the tags were added (aside from individually checking the history of each template)? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't. I thought about having sub-categories, which would be easy to make due to a date parameter being used with {{deprecated}}. However, that would be a lot of sub-categories. I guess the easiest way right now would be to look at my contribs with only templates showing (here). Any entry with an edit summary of "+deprecated tag" and a rollback link are ones that are currently marked. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that a full list of templates ready for deletion is on the WP:DOT page, in the section "Templates ready to be deleted". I assume it's a function of the code of Template:Deprecated. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you knew about that function, and just wanted a day-by-day breakdown for something else. As you can see, {{deprecated}} puts the templates in one cat upon the original tagging, and then puts it in both cats after 14 days. Gotta love ParserFunctions. : - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

St. Phillip Neri church bombing

I have created the article St. Phillip Neri church bombing. Can you take a look at the article when you are free? I feel that I should send it through a neutral eye. Be Bold and let me know and problems with the article that you might not be able to fix. Thanks Watchdogb 21:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have looked over and edited the article (see diff). I think it was well-written and representative of the sources and my changes consist mostly of adding the "Reactions" section and reordering – several times, actually ... I couldn't make up my mind :) – content in the "Incident" section. Please make any necessary corrections/reverts/additions. Also, I've proposed a pagemove on the article's talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm no longer sure that a pagemove is necessary. I was going to propose renaming to St. Philip Neri Church shelling, but I'm not certain it's necessary. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work and nice words. You have done a great job editing the article to make it proper. Thanks again Watchdogb 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing "Fr Brown blamed the SLA" as it is not backed up by any citations and I got mixed up with other allegations. Watchdogb 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG, the ratinale for the picture unbelivable :)))Taprobanus 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The rationale could still be disputed as taking an image of the site is not technically impossible, but I think there are enough factors involved in this particular case to justify using the image under fair use. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

MFD

That seems like a reasonable call on the BJAODN case, both by you and by Diablo. >Radiant< 07:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For the Tireless contribution in fixing and editing SL related articles. Thanks and keep up the good work! Watchdogb 17:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

More fun with language cats

In the discussion for the Creek language cat, you suggested moving the template as well. Is this something that can be speedily done, or do I need to go through the whole WP:TFD thing? The reason I ask is because of all of the moves done over the past week; I have already changed the text inside the box (the two- or three-letter code) to match the new cat, but now it doesn't match the name of the template. I really don't want to go through the hassle of TFDing them to change a couple of letters, but I don't have too much of an issue with a speedy. (This would also apply to some of the other changes, but not the Alemannic cats; those I am going to run through TFD because they are on so many user pages, and because of the bizarre fashion in which I have advocated fixing them. Horologium t-c 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming a template, especially when doing so is not overly controversial or has the implicit support of a UCfD discussion, does not require a TfD discussion. Only if someone persistently objects to a rename should further discussion (perhaps at Wikipedia:Requested moves) become necessary. I think that renaming these templates certainly falls under individual editorial discretion. Moreover, for any templates that are uncontroversial deletion candidates (i.e. that are orphaned, deprecated, and/or serve no real purpose), you can seek deletion by tagging the template as {{deprecated}}. Controversial deletions should still go through WP:TFD, but 'housekeeping'-type deletions can be handled via Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

<smacks forehead> D'oh! I am so used to suggesting category renames that I forgot that templates can be moved by anyone, not just admins. I'll go ahead and take care of the ones that have already been done. Horologium t-c 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you believe this...I changed the ma templates to arz (as per the UCfD decision) and ANOTHER Egyptian Arabic speaker (not the one with whom you had a long debate, but another one) reverted all of my changes? I'll take this one to TfD, because now I am really irritated. This is a prime example of why I had run all the cats separately earlier; after my experience with the psuedoreligionist(sic) categories, I didn't want to have a huge debate over one category in the group, and that one cat has been the source of all of the strife over what should have been a non-controversial move. Gahhh. Horologium t-c 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Though the editor is technically correct that "templates and categories are not the same", I think that conformance of the template and category names would be useful to avoid confusion. It might be easier to just create a redirect to Template:User ma from Template:User arz. At least that way people who search for the "arz" code will find the template. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. I just responded to him on my talk page, telling him I'd create redirects. Oy. The redirects were automatically created when he moved the cats back to their original location, so I don't have to do anything. Horologium t-c 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wanna find an easter egg?" category

Hi. I am BlooWilt. I am the maker of this category, and I'd like to say that the category was made to help people on my easter egg hunt find my 14th easter egg. It would be nice if there was some way to make the category without putting it into public. --BlooWilt on the wikiprowl, later! 17:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to create a page without making it public. Perhaps you could link to #14 directly from the text of the InuYasha userbox. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess. Though that will take out some of the fun, but okay. --BlooWilt on the wikiprowl, later! 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Prawn farm massacre

Sorry to disturb you again. Certain user is adding NPOV/totally disputed tags without properly giving reason to the tagging. Can you please comment on this act. Thank you Watchdogb 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I initially reverted his edit, but it seems he reverted me as well. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is currently protected. The user is just pulling things out of his wealth of knowledge about everything but fail to give any reference to back his claims. I am really confused on what to do. Oh, and thanks for your comments. Watchdogb 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. It looks much better now. Thanks for your hard work Watchdogb 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

You just protected a flawed and weakened version of one of our most important core policies. - 21:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I protected the version that happened to be there when I noticed the edit-warring. I'm sure that either version would have been the "wrong version". If there are any particularly important and/or well-established provisions that are missing from this version, please point them out. As far as I could tell, there were only two major differences between your and Wikidemo's versions (putting aside minor differences in wording): the inclusion/exclusion of the "or in obscure newspapers" provision and of the unreliable external links provision. In any case, the page protection is for 48 hours only. Hopefully agreement can be reached by or before then. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP/N#WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself (top). Thank you. --NYScholar 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[Updated there today. --NYScholar 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)]

Thank you for letting me know. I think the notifications will be useful if they succeed at bringing new participants/perspectives to the discussion. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that has not occurred yet. After I posted a request for edit template on the page, I realized that the protected status expired (acc. to the protection log); if I am incorrect in removing the expired template, please advise. Please consult the problem of the policy/guideline conflict that I mention at end of Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. I do hope that more discussion can take place before the policy is rewritten without "wide consensus." [I think it needs reverting back to what it was before the edit war that occurred circa August 12/13 and after that. Then perhaps some "wide consensus" will occur with additional comments from concerned people. If there is no concern, then I don't know why the project policy page WP:BLP had to be changed from SV's version pre- and circa-August 12, 2007 version.] Thanks again. --NYScholar 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You posted the notices about 30 hours ago ... perhaps people will trickle in. And yes, the protection expired about 5.5 hours before your post, so the {{pp-dispute}} tag should be removed. If the notices you posted do not produce an inflow of new participants, perhaps you might consider adding {{underdiscussion}} to solicit comments. Then again, that creates the possibility that the presence of the tag itself may become the subject of an edit war. ;) — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

In what ways does consensus apply to talk pages? Usually it is where disagreements are discussed through discourse and both arguments should remain in the history, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD A7 exclusivity: don't understand comment

You said in [8]'s edit comment: The criterion, as worded, is exclusive. Moreover, some articles, like ones about pets, should be speedied, so it's better to leave some wiggle-room).

As a non-native English speaker, I can't make head or tail of that - do you want the list to be exclusive ("it is"), or do you want it to be nonexclusive ("wiggle room")? I've now seen so many people fall into discussions about whether or not it is exclusive that I find the claim that the current text is clear very hard to understand. --Alvestrand 19:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the unclear edit summary. What I meant to say was this: As currently worded ("An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not state ...") the list technically is exclusive. Though I don't support an expansion of A7 to all articles (as some people on the talk page are pushing for), I also think that A7 can (in limited cases) justifiably be applied to articlesnot about a person, group, band, club, company, or web content. For instance: an article about an individual animal that doesn't assert significance. Of course, some redundancy for the sake of clarity may be necessary, so perhaps my edit was ill-advised. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: RE: Category:Users who support UNlimited Taiwan

yeah, go ahead and tag and bag it, lol - Fugitivedread 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:User egy-1

The goal of Egy-1 was to have something that would work in Wikipedia:Babel, which was not sucessful. The text, which reads "this user is able to write in basic Egyptian Hieroglyphics" is closer in nature to the text in the box in Category:User Egyp-1. If you want to merge, that's probably the better choice. Thanatosimii 00:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will specify the appropriate target at the deletion discussion. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 00:51 (UTC), 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		Thanks...
	Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA. Even though you didn't support my candidacy, I did greatly appreciate your comments, which I will certainly put to good use in improving myself as an editor. I do plan to make another request in a few months, once I have improved upon your concerns. Thank you again, and happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Russgrue sandbox

Gday, I understand the deletion for the categories I had created I could not find any standards on the creation of categories for use in a seandbox environment. However the other articles and templates should fall under my sandbox and are used to experiment with style. Russgrue 07:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists

No one has really commented on this thread, to which I've left pointers at Template talk:Copyedit, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, WP:VPR, and Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I can certainly be bold and change template:copyedit to not use categories, but the lack of responses puzzles me. Any thoughts? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Save the Trivia

Please refrain from removing hangons. I was using it to help stop the article from its deletion. --Alien joe 21:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see that. --Alien joe 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My save the trivia page has been deleted. Because it failed, I will now leave Wikipedia. Cheers. --Alien joe 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV

I have put my sandbox for DRV. Seeing as you were happy to help, I thought you might like to participate. It is here. Henchman 2000 08:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Hi,

I noticed that you nominated two categories I created, Category:Wikipedian Belleville Bulls fans‎ and Category:Wikipedian Brampton Battalion fans‎ for deletion and then withdrew them not long after. I am curious as to why you so quickly withdrew the noms. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy...

Thanks for the courtesy of giving me a heads-up over the nomination for deletion. It really upsets me when nominators neglect this recommendation of the deletion policies.

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:User prolog

In the WP:UCFD discussion for Category:User prolog, you suggested a reverse merge. Since that really does make more sense, would you mind if I speedily closed the discussion in order to start a new nomination proposing a reverse merge? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, though since only you and I have commented, and it's been relisted, you could also just change the nom, and I can adjust my comments accordingly. Either way is fine with me. - jc37 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I started a new discussion rather than modifying the existing one so that someone who looks through the edit history of Category:User prolog can have a unique discussion to check. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Public domain license

Sure, go ahead. Thanks for sorting that out, I've never ventured past AfD/MfD to the exotic lands of CfD. Your native discussion practices bewilder my xenophobic mind :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

David Talbott AfD

I think you prematurely closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott. At the very least there is no clear consensus I could see: 3 keeps and 2 deletes. Can you reopen the discussion? Please respond on my talkpage. Nondistinguished 02:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Talbott. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nondistinguished 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jetpack article AfD

Hi, I have a comment regarding your recent closure of the Jetpack article's AfD. Until now I've noticed a rather appealing trend at deletion discussions: The admins who end up closing these discussions have been those who haven't exhibited a prominent opinion that might compromise their objective handling of such closures. I don't mean to imply that the final decision and reasoning weren't justified, as I'm sure you made every attempt to remain objective. However you've been quite vocal on the subject of trivia, enough to qualify as a conflict of interest for a discussion pertaining to this particular type of article. So far I've seen that other admins who've expressed an opinion on the subject counter to yours have refrained from performing such closures, choosing instead to contribute to their discussions. I think it would've been more appropriate if you had contributed to this discussion too, rather than choosing to be the closing admin. I won't open a deletion review, as I'm more concerned in a general sense rather than for this particular article, but I'm only agreeing not to do so if you recognize my point here and agree to be a bit more aware of this in the future.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 04:34, 09/14/2007

I don't consider myself 'vocal' on the subject of trivia and am certainly not actively involved with trivia sections: I rarely comment at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections, no longer comment at Template talk:Trivia, withdrew from WikiProject Trivia Cleanup several weeks ago, and basically do almost no editing involving trivia sections. I don't even have these pages watchlisted and the only reason I made the few recent comments that I did was because of Alien joe's petition. I will also repeat that although I oppose the permanent inclusion of trivia sections, I do not support their unconsidered removal in the short term.

In any case, I don't see how my opinions on trivia are relevant to the article Jet pack in popular culture or to its AfD, since the issue with that article was not trivia, but WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, which is accepted policy. An "in popular culture" article is not the same as a trivia section. Moreover, if you search through my AfD contributions, you will find that I have tended to suggest keeping these sorts of articles in probably 50% or so of cases (more if you count 'merge' recommendations).

I do avoid closing discussions for articles in which I may have a vested interest, but the vested interest has to be something material. For instance, given my involvement (mostly as a third party) in various disputes involving Sri Lankan conflict-related articles, I will not close any AfDs for articles related to the Sri Lankan conflict and will not protect any such pages, except in serious cases (e.g. persistent BLP vandalism). However, taken to the extreme, the principle of avoiding even the semblance of a possible vested interest would handicap virtually all admins, as most have edited articles on a wide range of topics and have expressed opinions on numerous policies and guidelines.

If you think that the closure was inappropriate, or that my views on trivia tainted my ability to objectively assess the discussion (again, I don't see what an "in popular culture" article has to do with a "trivia sections" guideline), you should open a deletion review. The appropriateness or inappropriateness of this specific closure cannot be affected by what I do or do not do in the future. To be honest, I was a bit surprised by your comment that you're "sure [I] made every attempt to remain objective", since the issue of a potential vested interest or problem with objectivity didn't even cross my mind ... it was a routine closure and one of several I made in (relatively) quick succession.

I hope that my comments clarify my thought process and assuage your worries about a possible vested interest. Please let me know whether you intend to proceed with the deletion review. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I recognize your evidence to support your objectivity but I've carried on a few rather lengthy and recent discussions with you at wikipedia talk:trivia sections, in which you vehemently defended a stance that could be considered "anti-trivia", or at least, opposed to those who support trivia. And while you may consider "In Popular Culture" lists as a separate issue, the trivia guideline does not. I realize that my interpretation of your view might not be completely accurate; but unfortunately, your actual feelings on the issue don't matter as much as the perception based on your comments in those discussions. I've also noticed based on those same discussions that you're a reasonable person, so I'm sure you can at least recognize that there are plenty of other admins for whom there would be much less question of objectivity, since there are admins who haven't participated in the trivia debate at all, and those are the ones who, rightly, have been closing these kinds of deletion discussions -- such as the recent TfD for template:trivia; The closing admin for that discussion was someone who made absolutely no appearance at any trivia discussion, which made the objectivity of his closing quite unquestionable. This might not be as prominent a discussion but the same unquestionable objectivity should still be a priority, for all articles.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:43, 09/14/2007

PS. I hope you didn't perceive my comment about a possible deletion review as a threat. It wasn't intended that way, at all, and I would still rather not start one. I'm counting on your sense of reason, to recognize that perhaps you should be leaving AfD closings pertaining to trivia in any sense to admins who have not participated in the trivia debate, as you have in a rather significant way. I welcome your contributions to such discussions, but closing those discussions really should be left to admins who haven't been in on the debate themselves. I'm sure you can understand that. I would only open a deletion review as a last resort, because although technically it would not affect anything but this specific article, I do feel it would have something of a collateral lasting effect, which I'm sure you can also recognize. Again this is not a threat though, and I would still rather not proceed that way. Please try to understand where I'm coming from.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 06:16, 09/14/2007

The "few lengthy discussions" to which you refer involve 8 comments made by myself in two sections on a talk page that has seen 26 new sections and 430+ edits in the past two weeks alone. I hardly think that can constitute a 'vehement' defence of ... anything. Though you may consider my stance 'anti-trivia', my opinions on trivia sections, which concern the organisation of content within articles, are unrelated to the deletion of entire articles.

Although you're correct that the trivia guideline mentions the phrase "in popular culture", it does so in the following context: "A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, which are often grouped into their own section labeled ..." (emphasis added). The guideline lists the types of titles trivia sections might have; it does not suggest that anything titled "[Subject] in popular culture" is a trivia section. I have seen very well-written "in popular culture" sections which I would never dream of labeling 'trivia sections'.

I recognise that "the perception" of my actual opinions may matter as much as my actual views, but I would rather avoid supporting and perpetuating a misperception that I believe has no material grounding. I do not consider the TfD for Template:Trivia, which I didn't even participate in, an analogous example: that discussion I most definitely would not have closed (I used to be an active discussant at Template talk:Trivia), but the Jet pack in popular culture article was one that I had not edited (nor have I edited articles on jet packs in general) and that had little or nothing to do with trivia.

In response to your second paragraph, no, I did not perceive your comment about the deletion review as a threat. Still, if you feel that the closure was inappropriate, you should open a deletion review. If you do not feel that the closure was inappropriate, then there is no reason to request a review. I can also suggest a less formal alternative: ask one or more administrators whom you perceive to have less of a vested interest to confirm or reject the closure.

As my comments above should make clear, I reject your contention that I am involved with trivia in a "rather significant way", partly because I have yet to see any evidence for it (even after I reviewed my discussion with you). I am curious about something: when you wrote that I "should be leaving AfD closings pertaining to trivia in any sense to admins who have not participated in the trivia debate", do you also take that to include any article with a trivia section? In any case, since the jetpack AfD did not pertain to trivia, I do not see that such a restriction would have prevented me from closing the debate.

Please also consider the following: I participate quite extensively at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (as do many other admins) and several parts of that page include wording that I introduced. Does that mean I should stay away from speedy deletions? I also support the continued existence of the notability guideline; should I stay away from any AfDs that involve notability issues (ca. 80-90%)? Most administrators support or agree with most existing policies and guidelines; the fact that they also use them to guide their AfD closures is not proof of a vested interest.

Though you may choose not to believe me, I do try to avoid possible vested interests, which is why, for instance, I generally refuse to use the admin tools for even the most uncontroversial changes to Sri Lankan conflict-related articles (e.g. unprotection of a protected article, even when every party in a content dispute has agreed to a compromise wording). The issue of avoiding a vested interest is certainly more prominent in my mind today than it was yesterday, but I'd be lying if I said that I saw or see any such problem with my closure of the jetpack AfD. I had no involvement with the article or any related article, the closure was fairly uncontroversial, and any opinions I may or may not have had about trivia sections (again, I think you've misunderstood my position) were not relevant to the discussion.

Please believe me that I am trying to understand your points, but I just don't see a material basis to them. It seems to me that your concerns stem partly from a conflation of "in popular culture" articles with trivia sections and partly from a significant over-interpretation of the strength of my feelings about trivia based on a few short comments made on 5 September and 7 September, which (again) are not especially relevant to the jetpack AfD. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't necessarily keep away from speedy deletions, because that isn't the subject of any prominent debate. Listen, I'm not trying to argue semantics or evidence with you. You can count the number of comments you made at talk:trivia sections, but the number makes little difference. You can say your participation wasn't significant, but that's subjective and hardly my linchpin. My point was that you participated in the trivia debate and you closed an AfD that, although technically shouldn't necessarily have had to do with trivia, it nevertheless is perceived by many to be a textbook example (see the first comment at the AfD). I hope this clarifies my point: It's not that I don't believe you, but the specifics are of little consequence. The problem is the way the whole situation looks, to people like me. This is a sensitive debate and the best people to close discussions that touch on that debate would be people that have not participated in.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:18, 09/14/2007

Actually, the speedy deletion criteria are constantly the subject of prominent and highly controversial debate, as are the notability guidelines. They may not be "sensitive" issues for you, but they are for others. More to the point (though I'm still interested in your thoughts on the questions I asked regarding speedy deletion and notability), even if I agree not to involve myself in discussions that "touch on [the trivia] debate", I will note once more that the AfD in question did not do that. You can rest assured that I will be more careful when approaching "in popular culture" AfDs in the future, but I have yet to see a single reason to agree not to close them. The only thing you've stated so far is that you don't like "the way the whole situation looks". However, given the absence of any actual evidence to suggest a reason for such discomfort, perhaps you are simply being overly sensitive?

Perceptions can be more important than reality, as you note, but a vague feeling based merely on the fact that I voiced an opinion on an unrelated issue is not particularly convincing. I am also not inclined to engage in a bureaucratic tap-dance to try to avoid any conceivable perception of a vested interest that doesn't exist, and for misperceptions no less, which I have done everything I can to clarify. In essence, what you are asking is for administrators to avoid closing an AfD on any article which is mistakenly perceived to be or is only tangentially related to a guideline or policy about which they've voiced an opinion. I do not find that reasonable.

Again, if you have your doubts about the closure, I encourage you to seek a third opinion or open a deletion review. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 06:04, 09/15/2007

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Black Falcon,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.

Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.

—Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

Afd Question and an RFC

You had asked a question in an AFD here and we have replied to you there. Also per an ANI you were involved an RFC has been opened.Taprobanus 18:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Walk t'plank!

		Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!
		Ahoy, me hearty! How 'bout a good ol' jug o' grog? RegARRds, Húsönd 15:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Category move

As you have updated the graph at Template:Notability progress in the past I thought you should know that the categories are being moved.

Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from July 2007 will go to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from July 2007

Hope this helps,

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:56 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Many thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 21:18 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Incidentally there is a list of the sub-categories at [9] Rich Farmbrough, 21:20 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Old categories empty (and gone). Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 16:05 24 September 2007 (GMT).

It has been proposed (CfD 21st Sept). But there was also a proposal to do away with the cats and use a "whatlinkshere" solution. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42 24 September 2007 (GMT).

Portal:Africa

Hi: I think what you are trying to do will be good for the portal. However, you may consider using an {{underconstruction}} tag on the countries page of portal. Arman ^(Talk) 02:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Caelus

Hi Black Falcon! I added to the article called Caleus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caelus Would you mind editing it or cleaning it up? Thanks! Neptunekh 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

and all that jazz

I saw you had left a note on Mindmeal's talk page (which is still on my watchlist from previous chats) and went to support, getting your message after I had done so! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 00:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a possible

There are sufficient (and will be if the literaure project keeps its momentum) to person the australian - I would rather delete the category - and leave someone else to deal with the japanese item - surely there are persons more adept at finding appropriate place for the two orphans - and if it was created - it was obvious there was no checking for the australian category ! I am reluctant to be involved with or do an 'asia' or 'oceania' number on this subject far too way out SatuSuro 04:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - I am about to go into the real world - awaay from this - and would suggest the category needs deleting - and the articles moved to the parent or the Australian - imho - cheers and thanks for the chance to explore the issues! SatuSuro 05:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers

Greetings: I'm posting this note for each of the five editors who left a comment on the CFD for Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers prior to my own comments on the subject. I'm seriously puzzled by the complete lack of response to my comments, as I was anticipating a very thoughtful exchange of views. But after 3 entire days, not a single reply. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

In any event, please consider this a personal request for your response to my remarks. As I said, I'm looking forward to a thoughtful discussion. Regards, Cgingold 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

Hello Black falcon

Can you please weigh in on the problem at the article. I added explicit attribution to some of the allegations because it comes from one side of the warring part towards another side. The citations also explicitly claim that the military/police claim that this attacks were manned by LTTE. However, in the article, it is presented as a accusation without an attribute. I have discussed exactly what the citations claim on the talk page. Some users want to remove that and call me a vandal because I explicitly attribute to maintain NPOV. You comment is much appreciated. Watchdogb 18:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article requires a more general refocusing. I've proposed merging it into List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE as a first step, but I also think that a stricter standard for inclusion needs to be established. When dealing with a conflict that has claimed 65000+ lives, I don't think its tenable to list minor attacks like the 22 September 2007 Trincomalee bombing. I'm not trying to downplay the loss of life, but such bombings, shootings, and grenade attacks are practically a daily occurrence. I intend to initiate a discussion about that issue soon, but want to wait until the matter of merging is taken care of. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE article. I have also replied to it on the talk page. Is it fair to just leave to explicitly mention who has alleged whom in some of the incidents ? Specially because the given citations claim so ? Watchdogb 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. On the one hand, it's generally good to note who alleges or suspects something. On the other, one could argue that the Sri Lankan Defence Ministry is not the only entity that suspects LTTE involvement in those attacks or that it's implied that the party doing the suspecting is the GOSL. I am reluctant to become involved in the specific dispute since I don't think the three attacks in question should even be listed; on the grand scheme of things, they are fairly minor incidents. I think merging the article and establishing stricter criteria will largely take care of the issue. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)