This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
Link —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC).
Hi, Black Falcon. I reverted some of the changes you have recently you made to Cristian Pârvulescu. Among them was your addition of diacritics in brackets for category inclusions - a letter with a diacritic will be placed at the end of the alphabetized category. (A word with the succession of letters "Pâ" will be placed after a "Pz" word. This is especially obvious with words that start with a diacritic, as they are placed at the end of the alphabet.) I consider this "rule" a bug in the system myself, as they could have simply write in a command for the system to view all letters with diacritics as their letter in categories; as it is, we have to work with it. Thanks for your attention and happy editing. Dahn 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is that policy or preference? I am curious, not offended. Had just run peerreviewer script on it to correct such things. Seasalt 11:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has nominated the article The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, you are quite right. Yacveria is merely a concept intended to prove a theory a friend and I were discussing. Unfortunately another work collegue thought it would be funny to try and build a Yacveria country page. *Note this is my account - I'm assuming he found the login details on my desk, I'll have words when he arrives.
I have set the page up for Speedy Deletion - It could have been a useful tool in that we could gage reaction. But I'm sure there are more suitable places to test theories. I've noticed a message from you regarding Sandbox - Is that a page open to experimentation? Citizenerased2000 08:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead, delete it. I only made the first sentence. You'd be better off contacting the people who wrote the bulk of the article.-- CyberGhostface 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the speedy tag you placed on the above page, we are working to put uncyclopedia on main page for april fools, this is why it has been created - so we don't disturb mainspace RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
See my reply on my talk page. -- Howard the Duck 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Responded on my talk page.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon,
I just wanted to say that I'm not 100% sure how to deal with anti-Iranianism but I really appreciate your thoughtful comments on the AfD. I have to give some thought to what the best course of action is. GabrielF 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon. What's happening right now is that a few people are in a huff over Anti-Iranianism. The trick is maybe to do a reverse POV fork (the opposite of taking a neutral article and making a second one that pushes a POV.) Start an article from a stub on "Anti-Iranian sentiment" and keep it focused. Also another could be "Anti-Persian sentiment" and tied them together. There is much material available for such articles. The debate on the AfD is a bit of a distraction and a waste of time. My recent experience was that GabrielF nominated this article Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility for deletion and the solution was just to expand the appropriate section in the boarder and more informative article: Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program. Don't take Wikipedia too seriously, everything often works out in the end. -- 70.51.232.106 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again,
The ideal solution is for someone who really understands the material to rewrite the article based on scholarly secondary sources about the topic, but of course that's not very likely to happen. The reason that I don't think withdrawing the AfD is a good idea is that I just don't see how the suggestions that you and others made can be implemented if there is a group of editors who think that the arguments that I and others have made amount to racism. I'll withdraw my nomination if the changes that you recommended on the AfD page are implemented, but I really don't see that happening. I'm not prepared to withdraw the AfD if someone can add an unencyclopedic list of everyone who has ever used the term "anti-Iranianism" and then prevent its removal. GabrielF 02:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the thing is we can't just find the worst thing someone has said about the STF and include them in the article. I don't think wikipedia should work that way. Like I said in the edit summery, if I write something in a book or newspaper along the lines of "the STF are a brilliant organization that protects the people of Sri Lanka and all the accusations against them are fake" will we want to include it in the article? If I was someone important maybe (sadly I'm not :( Or if some top UN or Human rights organization said something like that then yes, it can be included. Otherwise I don't think we should be quoting someone who doesn't seem notable and who is a "researcher at the Japan Institute for Control of Aging." [2] -- snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 05:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the message. I think the material should be kept one way or another, if not in that article then in another. There is clearly a movement to restrain Iran's development, so the information is notable. Some users don't like this information because of political reasons, but WP is supposed to be cool and neutral. Anyway, another of my concern is that the article not just be about anti-Persianism, but take into account anti-Iranianism as a whole, because Persians are only one out of dozens of ethnic groups in the country, and all Iranians identify as "Iranians". Its like the United States, except we are not a modern civilisation and most groups are ethnically and historically related. No one would deny anti-Israel sentiments (against the state and its citizens) or anti-American sentiments (against the state and its citizens) or anti-France sentiments (against the state and its citizens) to cite three well known examples of anti-national sentiments, which are not just attacks against governments, but also the peoples of those lands. I am half-Kurd, and half-Arab for example, but when I have been attacked, they have attacked me as an Iranian, not because I am half-Kurdish or half-Arab. Those who have attacked me never even knew my ethnic background, they only knew about the Iranian part. Same is true of most countries like even France, which has many ethnic groups. But when a French citizen travels to United States, for example, and if he or she is ridiculed or taunted for being French (this has happened, of course), they are not being targeted because of their ethnicity necessarily, but because they are French nationality. Of course people are ignorant and assume all French are the same so they think they are also attacking the ethnicity. Just as with attacks against Iranians, they see us as all the same (typical Eurocentric, Orientalist view), so they attack us as one ethnic group. Just like when people attack "Middle Easterners" as "ragheads" and "camel jockeys" etc. (even including Greeks and Armenians and Indians and Pakistanis in this label!) they are assuming Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Armenians, Indians etc etc are all exactly the same. Khorshid 05:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Why should hostility toward the Persian and Iranian states and animosity toward the Persian and Iranian peoples be seperate? The two determine eachother's fates. Take 1953. If it were not for the CIA/UK Operation Ajax, Iran's popularly elected Prime Minister would not be replaced by a dictator that became notorious for his Savak torture prisons, and the rise of the mullahs themselves. Another example is the US unilateral sanctions on Iran's government. It has been proven that such sanctions only affect Iran's people, not its government, and yet the U.S. insists it effects the government. I've seen how these sanctions make people's lives miserable. Yet another example is the financial, intelligence, and indirect military support of the U.S. offered to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam wouldnt have the capability to bomb civilian targets in Iranian cities (which I routinely saw with my own eyes, shops, houses bombed), if it were not for this support. The current govt of Iran may be an unpopular one, with many blunders and embarassing faults, but they are twined with the lives of the people.
And yet, I have showed my will for a compromise: I have drastically trimmed down the US section. I hope that suffices, and that you meet me halfway as well.-- Zereshk 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
btw, totally off the point, I saw Nelson Mandella once when he visited our school ( Tehran University) a couple of years ago. I thought it was interesting.-- Zereshk 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I'm not sure if you've got access to Dresch's work which I cited in the AfD on the Saudi-Yemeni war - or even whether the online sources are superior to it, since I haven't yet had the time to check them through - but if you need any citations from it, just drop me a line and I'll be happy to footnote away. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I made them... but, they are bad by today's standards. I have tried to create an SVG out of it... but I'm not sure if it's any good. It's close. But, maps should be more than close. Image:Saudi Arabia provinces SVG template.svg is my SVG attempt. It's hard to see but, with a good framework it can easily be changed to show provinces. I am trying to find out if the borders on that images are accurate. I think some of the angles are too soft and I'm not fully sure how to fix it. Image:Saudi Arabia - Al Qasim province locator.png this is what I made it from. gren グレン 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, Image:Saudi Arabia provinces template.svg will be easier to see... but, look at how soft some of the smaller provinces are. I'm not sure how to fix that. gren グレン 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I would just like to thank you for your work on the Special Task Force page, it is deeply apreciated. If you would like to work together on any projects I would be honored.
-- Sharz 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful post about the proposed guideline. My concern is that we will have too many articles which are definitely news at the time they happen, as evidenced by the decision of newspaper editors and TV news show producers to present them. But they may be so commonplace that we would have articles about things which are a frequent part of daily life. The example was give of a fatal multipassenger car wreck in a small European country. It will definitely be presented in the 3 major newspapers and the 3 TV stations. Some would say, well, it still doesn't get in, because we require coverage on more than 1 day's events. So we have the accident reported on Feb 1, then the funeral on Feb. 4, with more coverage because one was a high school honor student (nonnotable but sympathetic). Then we have another when the hit and run driver is found and arrested. We hasve another round of stories when he is put ontrial and another when he is convicted. To go to a recent tragic missing white girls story, please tell me if there should be Wikipedia articles for Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites. The two girls, 16 and 18 went missing along with a car belonging to one around Jan 22, 2007 from Gaithersburg Maryland. On Jan 22, TV station NBC4 (Maryland?) ran a story "Police get leads from public. The Washington Post ran an independent story "Police reach out to 2 missing teenagers " on page PB2. On Jan 23, CBS TV channel 5 in Montgomery County Maryland ran a story derived in part from an Associated Press story, "Diary may hold clue." WJZ, CBS-TV Baltimore Maryland ran "Diary may hold clues." CBS TV station KCAL in Los Angeles, California ran a story originating from the Maryland TV station, giving the story coverage on at least both coasts. The Frederick News, Frederick Maryland ran an original story "Police search for missing teens." ABC-TV WJLA ran a story based on the Washington Post story. The Gazette-Net Maryland (print or net, not sure) ran an original story "Search for missing teens."
On Jan 24, the Examiner.com Montgomery County Maryland ran an original story "Scope of search increases." The Maryland Gazette ran "Nationwide search launched for missing teens.
On Jan 25, NBC4.com ran an original story "Center for Missing and Exploited Children searches for teens.”
On January 26, Cox.net a cable TV news channel, ran "Two missing Montgomery County girls gone a week."
On Jan. 27, The Washington Post ran "Family member plead for a phone call. America's Most Wanted, a network TV program which had earlier run a brief story on the two, ran a feature story.
There was a gap, then on Feb. 2, Fox TV News ran "On the Record, a network program with Greta van Susteren, in which the story was covered extensively and the father of one was interviewed. The Herald Mail online of Hagerstown Maryland ran an original story "Missing girls might be in area." NBC-TV channel 25 of Hagerstown ran an original story "Police find car with two bodies," with no signs of foul play. Snopes.com, a respected website which is carried in numerous newspapers, ran "Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites" telling the sad story.
On Feb 3, the Washington Post ran "Missing MD teen car found with two bodies" on page A1, indicating it is a major news story. The Associated Press sent out "Teens most likely dead from fumes." no suicide note, no pills, ignition on. But one girl had expressed a desire that they be buried together in her diary.
So this story had numerous original stories, not just reprints, written over numerous days, carried in papers in Maryland and adjoining states, and carried on 2 network TV programs, and carried in TV stations around the country This Shakespeare-quality tragedy seems to fully satisfy [[[WP:N], WP:RS, and WP:V. Are there other guidelines which could be used correctly against in in AFD, or would it be deleted on grounds “It just isn’t important enough a story?Does it satisfy WP:BIO? Compare to Jennifer Wilbanks who chose to run away and turned up safe. But Examiner.com, Washington D.C ran a story Jan 24 which said Montgomery County police (one county out of thousands in the U.S. had 1650 cases of runaways in 2006, and 811 remain open. Should we have 811 Wikipedia articles per county? Or only ones where two pretty teenage girls run way together in a Missing white woman syndrome. ( I can think of several similar cases in my medium size town) or only when they are found dead? Or is it a sad case for Wikinews? After doing the research and finding sources, I feel that I (or we) could write up a well sourced article on each girl or on the disappearance of both, and see if it survives AFD. It is a heart rending story for parents or friends of teenagers. But I'm not sure that this story or literally tens of thousands a year belong in an encyclopedia. I do not see new laws or any other change in society coming out of it. Can you find a reason for there not to be an article about this, or do you think I (or you) should write such an article? How many such cases of disappearances, crime victims, or even cute animal human interest stories get enough press coverage in enough independent sources over a long enough period to satisfy the filters you have listed and not get stories? Or is all news encyclopedic (not just Wikinewsworthy?) I really see the need for an additional filter to say, yes, it was widely covered for a couple of days or weeks, but it is not encyclopedic. A fat cat stuck in a doggy door may make national news on the day he is rescued, and then again when the owner installs a giant doggy door, because editors love to keep going back to an appealing story. Please give me your thoughts on my long (but labor intensive) reply to your long and thoughtful posting. Edison 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll look up where I found those details and will add the references to the article. So don't change the article right away. Top Gun —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the praise. I am doing my best to add more and more battles and bomings articles to the Iraq war battles and bombings campaignbox. The article seems comprehensive enough now. You to, great work! Top Gun —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
I've posted a follow-up question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a list of men who are notable for their height. It is limited to men who:
- are notable only for being extremely tall or short (e.g., Robert Pershing Wadlow); or
- are otherwise notable, but whose height (either tall or short) has been noted as directly relevant to (e.g., Yao Ming) or contributing (e.g., Peter the Great) to their notability.
The information was taken from the German language article.-- Carabinieri 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just made some additions to the article, and along with your additions, it's looking alot better. Thanks alot = ), is there any article in particular that you want some help with?
-- Sharz 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, so I just noticed how you have all your number on your userpage (like #of edits, number of mainspace, most edited ect - very impressive by the way, for me since i didn't know how to use preview I'll probably have like 99 percent non-mainspace edits) - where do you get that info, I've been looking for a good edit tracker like that. Thanks! Daniel()Folsom T| C| U 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna Branch) (UTHR (J)) The University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna Branch) (UTHR (J)) was formed in 1988 as part of the national UTHR. It no longer operates out of the University, following the murder of one of its founding members in 1989 and the withdrawal of many of its members from Jaffna in 1990. Their occasional reports on human rights are accessible via http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/UTHR (J)/UTHR (J).htm#UTHR (J). The work of the UTHR (J) is partly funded by the European Human Rights Foundation. [3] User:RaveenS —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
I created Assassinations and murders during the Sri Lankan civil war article by merging two articles, one was Attributed to the LTTE and the other to the government. Both were unstable and always had the tinge of POV over them and were cause of lot of edit wars. So I merged them and created this to minimize the conflict. When you have time, can you look over it please ? Thanks RaveenS
FWIW I know enough not to end up getting thumped for spouting political opinions in Buenos Aires, were I lucky enough to ever visit that city. And the same can be said for cities in the UK like Plymouth too, because people died in the war who would otherwise still be alive and I recognise feelings still run very strongly, SqueakBox 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Your comments in the AfD were added before two related articles were added to it as a group nomination. Please clarify whether your vote applies to all 3 or not. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct, it is a consequence of the attribution rules on the GFDL. See WP:MERGE. (This is one reason some of the other Wikimedia projects don't use the GFDL liscence but use more flexible ones). JoshuaZ 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems like the slightly better-sourced version of List of Peruvian Jews. I took a handful of redlinks and googled them. Here are some examples: [5], [6], ..even William Landau, M.D was recently deleted for not being notable. Aside from the sourced blue-links, many of which don't even describe the people as Mexicans. I have a feeling people won't delete this list if its up on AFD because they'll ignore the many red links and just focus on the few sourced ones, so I think the best approach may be to just redirect the list to List of Latin American Jews with all the blue-links. What do you think? Usedup 09:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It is my sense that batch AfD nominations should only be done when all articles nominated are substantially similar, so I think it was an error to include List of common Chinese surnames which is not in the same style as the rest. In that case, it should only have been listed individually, if at all. I've stricken it from the nomination, restricting the nomination to the remaining similar articles. Hopefully you can clarify your comment now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. Dmcdevit· t 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so much withdrawing the commercial failure AFD as I am relisting the articles separately, in individual AFD noms. In that way, a consensus to delete can still emerge for one or more of the articles. szyslak ( t, c) 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting Castle at WP:ACID. The article is in a shocking state and needs masses of work. You helped it stay on the list for another little while. Hopefully, it can get some more votes. Cheers, -- Dweller 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for standing up for Microsoft Office 14. It was my first brand-new article on Wikipedia and it had been "prodded" twice. I was ready to just let it die but I was very surprised to see someone sticking up for it. Thanks. :) White 720 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just letting you know that I reverted the formatting edit there accidentally, but if you look at the edit before that, Snowolfd4 deletes about 50% of the human rights section. -- Sharz 06:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. While it may be a little more difficult to distinguish between the actual text and the reference, the benefit of not having to scroll through all that text outways the burden. In any case, I never use that style of referencing, so the issue rarely comes up. Regards, KazakhPol 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The page read like it was right out of an official bio and you said that a source was needed to prove copyvio. I have found one [7]. Some parts have been cut, but several sections are word for word copyvio. -- Scorpion 04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you !voted early in this AfD. I can easily see how you arrived at your decision, base don information present in the debate at the time you !voted. If you are so inclined, would you please take a moment to review any new information that has been left since you last viewed it, and see if there is possibly basis to change your !vote? Thanks, Jerry lavoie 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've seen you give input under Articles for Deletion, and you appear to be fair and knowledgeable. I was checking up an article, UltraRogue and found the following:
Yet, I am unable to find the trail of where this deletion discussion took place, nor can I find any record of this action being taken under Lectonar's history. If you could please help me to follow what occurred and point me to wherever the log is, I would appreciate it.
Thank you Bbagot 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.
Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.
I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You recently fixed a mangling of two AfDs that were combined. This AfD notice still points to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_screen_capture_software. Is this the wrong place? Shouldn't it point to a AfD:List of screen recording software? I don't know how to fix this. Thanks. ( Requestion 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
In the articles for deletion discussion of List of films with disabled protagonists you commented that you thought the list should be deleted, but then stated that "A list of films about disabled persons or disabilities is a different matter." My understanding is that the " protagonist" of a film is by definition the person the film is about. The list itself may need clean-up, but I would expect that a list of films with disabled protagonists would in fact be a list of films that are about disabled people. I hope this is helpful. 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right about the album articles. I prodded them earlier in the day, before I'd made the AfD nomination. I'll de-prod them. Oldelpaso 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Userfied. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you do insert more information, it would meet WP:LIST as informative, and the argument for deletion would be no more. It could be hard to maintain over time, though? Punkmorten 09:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I nominated a group of articles for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames). However, a number of the articles had been considered for deletion not more than 2 days earlier and closed with a "no consensus, default keep" result (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames). I mistakenly perceived the discussion date to be 21 February 2006 instead of 2007. I would like to withdraw my nomination and call for a speedy close. However, a number of users have already voted to delete. Can I withdraw the nomination? Thank you, Black Falcon 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I adjusted {{ Oldcfdfull}}, if that's okay, and now it works as (I hope) you wanted. If you have questions or comments, feel free to leave a note. Gracenotes T § 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --— Indon ( reply) — 15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm formatting the book source given in the Dwight Gustafson article with {{ cite book}} per User:Uncle G's recommendation in the AfD. Could you please specify whether the page-numbers are for the paper-back or the hardcover edition (the ISBNs of the two are different). Thank you, Black Falcon 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear editor, since you also commented on this recent AfD, I would appreciate your input here: Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"#Arbitrary cut-off discussion. Best regards, -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take your time with the List of Tanzanians article. I'm not in a hurry and not trying to make a point. :) -- Ben 02:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
See, there's something that really wasn't acknowledged, that the only reason anyone can say "it's not a guide!" is because is can't be a guide. There's no one to guide, and no one can guide them yet, as it's unreleased. But when all of the other MP mini-game lists are about telling how to play them, what is to be expected? There's not been a precedence to put mini-game lists on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that it surviving has more to do with people liking the article more than feeling it adheres to policy and guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've userfied this to a subpage ( User:Black Falcon/Sandbox/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)) per your request at the AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon, I first noticed your work in AFD. Excellent work writing articles, saving worthwhile articles, sourcing articles, merging articles, and general insightful contributions. Have an award! I would like to nominate you for adminship! Are you interested? — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-07 12:34Z
With respect to the list of German actors and some administrative details, I really need you to register an e-mail in your preferences. You can make a yahoo account in less than a few minutes and use it exclusively for wikipedia. You'll understand why I'm asking when you get my first email. Usedup 01:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I was about to AfD, but seeing your comments I 'll wait another week. Your problem is the several different fields: is it particularly as a sociologist, or as a popular writer or what? If you can focus on one and actually prove it, I'll be glad to support the article. DGG 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
All articles were deleted dispite the voting againgt deletion. All images werre deleted as well.-- Dojarca 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you removed the prod notice from the article. I still don't think an article is needed so I put it up for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You recently participted in an AFD on Terrorism in Kazakhstan. Your input on a proposed page move is desired. Regards, KazakhPol 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thank's for leaving me the message about that. The page, as initially created, contained a link and mention that multiple members of the band went to form the band GWAR. According to wiki guidelines that should qualify them for notability. I've readded that information and removed the header. Tomb Ride My Talk 02:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon, this is a bit late but I'd just like to query your contestation of the {{ prod}} for Pop feminism. I originally tagged the page as original research because of its complete lack of references. I say this for the simple reason that 5 of the references (numbers 2-6) are not notable or published on reliable sources (the 5th reference is also broken) - the fact that there is 1 newspaper article about pop feminism doesn't mean it deserves its own article. As I have posted on the talk page there are some throw-away references made to pop feminism but I can't say that there is either a definition or clarification of the term in any academic source that I've come across. When the article itself says: "There is no proof pop feminism is an actual feminist philosophy; it seems to be an observed phenomenon in society or the media" it is correct. I am anxious to do something about this article whether expand, merge or delete - its current state is a mess. What are your views on the article?-- Cailil 12:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
To respond to your concerns:
As for removing the PROD tags, I checked through my edit history and you and GroggyDice have removed all of them. As you might have guessed, I'm a deletionist, and I think I still view these authors as failing WP:BIO, as they fail to assert their notability through 'secondary sources that are reliable, distinct, and independent of the subject'. But, this isn't my encyclopedia, and life will go on. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. Happy wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 14:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I responded to your request on my talk page. Thanks. — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The user seems to be more interested in ranting and making vague legal threats than finding reliable sources for his articles. If you think that Roger J. Geronimo is notable, I will not object if you remove the prod tag (although I would greatly appreciate if the sources were standardized since Hartal seems to only use the hard to reach caches for reasons I don't understand). Similar comments apply to the currently under AfD Rochelle Holt. JoshuaZ 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up Studios Architecture - the prod was mostly because it was a huge WP:COI/ WP:AUTO violation. It got me upset because then after that the user changed names which I thought was extremely fishy. I wanted somebody not affiliated to take a look, or let it fall off the map. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. That title, I think, will work better. Still, I'm not sure it holds up to Wikipedia's standards, but that can change - so I'm going with a "weak keep or merge" vote due to ambiguity (here, I'm focusing also on something like WP:LOCAL, as these people are notable amongst practicioners of homeopathy), but thinking that the article might not stand on its own and be better if it were merged into the Homeopathy article itself - but hedging a bet that it can live on its own. =^^= -- Dennisthe2 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The reason I moved the article (aside from the incorrect transliteration - Chazan is the German version of her name) was for consistency. For example, another MK, Yehiel Hazan, has the same name, but spelt differently (starting with an "H") on the Knesset website. There are plenty more examples (Haim vs Chaim etc), but unfortunately people take "official" Israeli translations as read, despite the fact there is no consistency (I believe there are some pages on the website where you can find more than two names spelt in different ways (one I know of which discusses presidents, talks about Chaim Weizmann, Haim Herzog and Ezer Weizman!)), and therefore Google searches to determine the "correct" spelling are effectively meaningless. I hope this is convincing enough not to move it back as I have recently started fixing mis-transliterations of Hebrew words/names (Qiryat -> Kiryat etc.) Number 57 09:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a second look at the article on Digital Strategy. I've been working on making edits based on guidance from Ronz and he felt it might be worthwhile for someone else to take a look. I've updated all the references (where possible) to link directly to their online sources and included page numbers (again where relevent). In addition, there are two other references which were removed as either COI or violating WP:SOURCE - self published and was wondering on what your take was now that the links have been added to the articles directly. Thanks for any help you can provide! -- Zyaar 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments and perspective. I think it will help focus the discussions about the article. Thanks! -- Ronz 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Black Falcon. This is great, constructive criticism and definitely gives me a roadmap to follow for any of my contributions to this topic. -- Zyaar 13:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I updated my essay quite a bit, thought you'd want to take a look. Cheers, Mango juice talk 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"intellectually independent" as you added it at Bio could be an interesting addition to WP:N. -- Kevin Murray 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You edited a criterion in WP:N down to "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject." removing the part about "independent of each other." So consider the case that I want to write about something which happenened say in 1880 through 1900 and the only online source I have for those years is the New York Times. If I find say 12 articles about the subject in that one source, they are independent of the subject but not of each other. Is that the making of an adequately referenced article? This leaves it for others to add references from books or from other publications of the period. Could someone argue legitimately that it should be deleted for lack of multiple references "independent of each other?" They could have before your edit but not after. This is not a hypothetical case, because I have relied on that one source for the reason stated. Edison 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Assassinations_and_murders_attributed_to_the_LTTE#redirect please respond on this ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ Talk 14:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The cruelist is generally being left to die of old age, but my preferred method would be for the tribe to leave me out on the ice where I'd gradually just become numb before succumbing! Noroton 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the debate closed with a merge result, and you indicated you'd be willing to do the merging of the content. Since you seem to be have been online a few minutes ago, I figured I'd leave a message to you before doing anything else. If you don't feel like doing it right now, I'll remove the afd tags and add in the {{ afdmergeto}} templates, but in the meantime, I won't be touching them. The title of the merge target is up to you. Thanks. - Bobet 18:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Trampton 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I've merged all of the items from the various lists back into the core article for now. I imagine that once I get it trimmed down and looking more encyclopedic the article won't need to be branched out. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the articles that were deleted have been recreated. I just thought I would point it out to you - Ozzykhan 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just rv'ing another step farther back when you did a second before me on Ethnic group Thanks.-- Xiahou 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that an Afd that you previously voted on, Maximilian Roos, was relisted due to some of the contributors sockpuppeting. I have revoted along with my original opinion. Laughhead 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The Afd was closed as delete - do you think that was the correct decision? One vote was struck that came from an IP user with >300 edits, another that had many edits but from a while ago. Does the remaining 3-2 demonstrate consensus? I'm not a regular wikipedia user so would be interested to know your opinion. Laughhead 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your lengthly reply. I will have a think and may post on DRV. Laughhead 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have posted it here. Wikipedia:Deletion review Laughhead 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
Link —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC).
Hi, Black Falcon. I reverted some of the changes you have recently you made to Cristian Pârvulescu. Among them was your addition of diacritics in brackets for category inclusions - a letter with a diacritic will be placed at the end of the alphabetized category. (A word with the succession of letters "Pâ" will be placed after a "Pz" word. This is especially obvious with words that start with a diacritic, as they are placed at the end of the alphabet.) I consider this "rule" a bug in the system myself, as they could have simply write in a command for the system to view all letters with diacritics as their letter in categories; as it is, we have to work with it. Thanks for your attention and happy editing. Dahn 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is that policy or preference? I am curious, not offended. Had just run peerreviewer script on it to correct such things. Seasalt 11:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has nominated the article The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, you are quite right. Yacveria is merely a concept intended to prove a theory a friend and I were discussing. Unfortunately another work collegue thought it would be funny to try and build a Yacveria country page. *Note this is my account - I'm assuming he found the login details on my desk, I'll have words when he arrives.
I have set the page up for Speedy Deletion - It could have been a useful tool in that we could gage reaction. But I'm sure there are more suitable places to test theories. I've noticed a message from you regarding Sandbox - Is that a page open to experimentation? Citizenerased2000 08:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead, delete it. I only made the first sentence. You'd be better off contacting the people who wrote the bulk of the article.-- CyberGhostface 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the speedy tag you placed on the above page, we are working to put uncyclopedia on main page for april fools, this is why it has been created - so we don't disturb mainspace RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
See my reply on my talk page. -- Howard the Duck 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Responded on my talk page.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon,
I just wanted to say that I'm not 100% sure how to deal with anti-Iranianism but I really appreciate your thoughtful comments on the AfD. I have to give some thought to what the best course of action is. GabrielF 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon. What's happening right now is that a few people are in a huff over Anti-Iranianism. The trick is maybe to do a reverse POV fork (the opposite of taking a neutral article and making a second one that pushes a POV.) Start an article from a stub on "Anti-Iranian sentiment" and keep it focused. Also another could be "Anti-Persian sentiment" and tied them together. There is much material available for such articles. The debate on the AfD is a bit of a distraction and a waste of time. My recent experience was that GabrielF nominated this article Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility for deletion and the solution was just to expand the appropriate section in the boarder and more informative article: Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program. Don't take Wikipedia too seriously, everything often works out in the end. -- 70.51.232.106 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again,
The ideal solution is for someone who really understands the material to rewrite the article based on scholarly secondary sources about the topic, but of course that's not very likely to happen. The reason that I don't think withdrawing the AfD is a good idea is that I just don't see how the suggestions that you and others made can be implemented if there is a group of editors who think that the arguments that I and others have made amount to racism. I'll withdraw my nomination if the changes that you recommended on the AfD page are implemented, but I really don't see that happening. I'm not prepared to withdraw the AfD if someone can add an unencyclopedic list of everyone who has ever used the term "anti-Iranianism" and then prevent its removal. GabrielF 02:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the thing is we can't just find the worst thing someone has said about the STF and include them in the article. I don't think wikipedia should work that way. Like I said in the edit summery, if I write something in a book or newspaper along the lines of "the STF are a brilliant organization that protects the people of Sri Lanka and all the accusations against them are fake" will we want to include it in the article? If I was someone important maybe (sadly I'm not :( Or if some top UN or Human rights organization said something like that then yes, it can be included. Otherwise I don't think we should be quoting someone who doesn't seem notable and who is a "researcher at the Japan Institute for Control of Aging." [2] -- snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 05:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the message. I think the material should be kept one way or another, if not in that article then in another. There is clearly a movement to restrain Iran's development, so the information is notable. Some users don't like this information because of political reasons, but WP is supposed to be cool and neutral. Anyway, another of my concern is that the article not just be about anti-Persianism, but take into account anti-Iranianism as a whole, because Persians are only one out of dozens of ethnic groups in the country, and all Iranians identify as "Iranians". Its like the United States, except we are not a modern civilisation and most groups are ethnically and historically related. No one would deny anti-Israel sentiments (against the state and its citizens) or anti-American sentiments (against the state and its citizens) or anti-France sentiments (against the state and its citizens) to cite three well known examples of anti-national sentiments, which are not just attacks against governments, but also the peoples of those lands. I am half-Kurd, and half-Arab for example, but when I have been attacked, they have attacked me as an Iranian, not because I am half-Kurdish or half-Arab. Those who have attacked me never even knew my ethnic background, they only knew about the Iranian part. Same is true of most countries like even France, which has many ethnic groups. But when a French citizen travels to United States, for example, and if he or she is ridiculed or taunted for being French (this has happened, of course), they are not being targeted because of their ethnicity necessarily, but because they are French nationality. Of course people are ignorant and assume all French are the same so they think they are also attacking the ethnicity. Just as with attacks against Iranians, they see us as all the same (typical Eurocentric, Orientalist view), so they attack us as one ethnic group. Just like when people attack "Middle Easterners" as "ragheads" and "camel jockeys" etc. (even including Greeks and Armenians and Indians and Pakistanis in this label!) they are assuming Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Armenians, Indians etc etc are all exactly the same. Khorshid 05:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Why should hostility toward the Persian and Iranian states and animosity toward the Persian and Iranian peoples be seperate? The two determine eachother's fates. Take 1953. If it were not for the CIA/UK Operation Ajax, Iran's popularly elected Prime Minister would not be replaced by a dictator that became notorious for his Savak torture prisons, and the rise of the mullahs themselves. Another example is the US unilateral sanctions on Iran's government. It has been proven that such sanctions only affect Iran's people, not its government, and yet the U.S. insists it effects the government. I've seen how these sanctions make people's lives miserable. Yet another example is the financial, intelligence, and indirect military support of the U.S. offered to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam wouldnt have the capability to bomb civilian targets in Iranian cities (which I routinely saw with my own eyes, shops, houses bombed), if it were not for this support. The current govt of Iran may be an unpopular one, with many blunders and embarassing faults, but they are twined with the lives of the people.
And yet, I have showed my will for a compromise: I have drastically trimmed down the US section. I hope that suffices, and that you meet me halfway as well.-- Zereshk 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
btw, totally off the point, I saw Nelson Mandella once when he visited our school ( Tehran University) a couple of years ago. I thought it was interesting.-- Zereshk 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I'm not sure if you've got access to Dresch's work which I cited in the AfD on the Saudi-Yemeni war - or even whether the online sources are superior to it, since I haven't yet had the time to check them through - but if you need any citations from it, just drop me a line and I'll be happy to footnote away. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I made them... but, they are bad by today's standards. I have tried to create an SVG out of it... but I'm not sure if it's any good. It's close. But, maps should be more than close. Image:Saudi Arabia provinces SVG template.svg is my SVG attempt. It's hard to see but, with a good framework it can easily be changed to show provinces. I am trying to find out if the borders on that images are accurate. I think some of the angles are too soft and I'm not fully sure how to fix it. Image:Saudi Arabia - Al Qasim province locator.png this is what I made it from. gren グレン 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, Image:Saudi Arabia provinces template.svg will be easier to see... but, look at how soft some of the smaller provinces are. I'm not sure how to fix that. gren グレン 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I would just like to thank you for your work on the Special Task Force page, it is deeply apreciated. If you would like to work together on any projects I would be honored.
-- Sharz 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful post about the proposed guideline. My concern is that we will have too many articles which are definitely news at the time they happen, as evidenced by the decision of newspaper editors and TV news show producers to present them. But they may be so commonplace that we would have articles about things which are a frequent part of daily life. The example was give of a fatal multipassenger car wreck in a small European country. It will definitely be presented in the 3 major newspapers and the 3 TV stations. Some would say, well, it still doesn't get in, because we require coverage on more than 1 day's events. So we have the accident reported on Feb 1, then the funeral on Feb. 4, with more coverage because one was a high school honor student (nonnotable but sympathetic). Then we have another when the hit and run driver is found and arrested. We hasve another round of stories when he is put ontrial and another when he is convicted. To go to a recent tragic missing white girls story, please tell me if there should be Wikipedia articles for Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites. The two girls, 16 and 18 went missing along with a car belonging to one around Jan 22, 2007 from Gaithersburg Maryland. On Jan 22, TV station NBC4 (Maryland?) ran a story "Police get leads from public. The Washington Post ran an independent story "Police reach out to 2 missing teenagers " on page PB2. On Jan 23, CBS TV channel 5 in Montgomery County Maryland ran a story derived in part from an Associated Press story, "Diary may hold clue." WJZ, CBS-TV Baltimore Maryland ran "Diary may hold clues." CBS TV station KCAL in Los Angeles, California ran a story originating from the Maryland TV station, giving the story coverage on at least both coasts. The Frederick News, Frederick Maryland ran an original story "Police search for missing teens." ABC-TV WJLA ran a story based on the Washington Post story. The Gazette-Net Maryland (print or net, not sure) ran an original story "Search for missing teens."
On Jan 24, the Examiner.com Montgomery County Maryland ran an original story "Scope of search increases." The Maryland Gazette ran "Nationwide search launched for missing teens.
On Jan 25, NBC4.com ran an original story "Center for Missing and Exploited Children searches for teens.”
On January 26, Cox.net a cable TV news channel, ran "Two missing Montgomery County girls gone a week."
On Jan. 27, The Washington Post ran "Family member plead for a phone call. America's Most Wanted, a network TV program which had earlier run a brief story on the two, ran a feature story.
There was a gap, then on Feb. 2, Fox TV News ran "On the Record, a network program with Greta van Susteren, in which the story was covered extensively and the father of one was interviewed. The Herald Mail online of Hagerstown Maryland ran an original story "Missing girls might be in area." NBC-TV channel 25 of Hagerstown ran an original story "Police find car with two bodies," with no signs of foul play. Snopes.com, a respected website which is carried in numerous newspapers, ran "Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites" telling the sad story.
On Feb 3, the Washington Post ran "Missing MD teen car found with two bodies" on page A1, indicating it is a major news story. The Associated Press sent out "Teens most likely dead from fumes." no suicide note, no pills, ignition on. But one girl had expressed a desire that they be buried together in her diary.
So this story had numerous original stories, not just reprints, written over numerous days, carried in papers in Maryland and adjoining states, and carried on 2 network TV programs, and carried in TV stations around the country This Shakespeare-quality tragedy seems to fully satisfy [[[WP:N], WP:RS, and WP:V. Are there other guidelines which could be used correctly against in in AFD, or would it be deleted on grounds “It just isn’t important enough a story?Does it satisfy WP:BIO? Compare to Jennifer Wilbanks who chose to run away and turned up safe. But Examiner.com, Washington D.C ran a story Jan 24 which said Montgomery County police (one county out of thousands in the U.S. had 1650 cases of runaways in 2006, and 811 remain open. Should we have 811 Wikipedia articles per county? Or only ones where two pretty teenage girls run way together in a Missing white woman syndrome. ( I can think of several similar cases in my medium size town) or only when they are found dead? Or is it a sad case for Wikinews? After doing the research and finding sources, I feel that I (or we) could write up a well sourced article on each girl or on the disappearance of both, and see if it survives AFD. It is a heart rending story for parents or friends of teenagers. But I'm not sure that this story or literally tens of thousands a year belong in an encyclopedia. I do not see new laws or any other change in society coming out of it. Can you find a reason for there not to be an article about this, or do you think I (or you) should write such an article? How many such cases of disappearances, crime victims, or even cute animal human interest stories get enough press coverage in enough independent sources over a long enough period to satisfy the filters you have listed and not get stories? Or is all news encyclopedic (not just Wikinewsworthy?) I really see the need for an additional filter to say, yes, it was widely covered for a couple of days or weeks, but it is not encyclopedic. A fat cat stuck in a doggy door may make national news on the day he is rescued, and then again when the owner installs a giant doggy door, because editors love to keep going back to an appealing story. Please give me your thoughts on my long (but labor intensive) reply to your long and thoughtful posting. Edison 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll look up where I found those details and will add the references to the article. So don't change the article right away. Top Gun —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the praise. I am doing my best to add more and more battles and bomings articles to the Iraq war battles and bombings campaignbox. The article seems comprehensive enough now. You to, great work! Top Gun —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
I've posted a follow-up question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a list of men who are notable for their height. It is limited to men who:
- are notable only for being extremely tall or short (e.g., Robert Pershing Wadlow); or
- are otherwise notable, but whose height (either tall or short) has been noted as directly relevant to (e.g., Yao Ming) or contributing (e.g., Peter the Great) to their notability.
The information was taken from the German language article.-- Carabinieri 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just made some additions to the article, and along with your additions, it's looking alot better. Thanks alot = ), is there any article in particular that you want some help with?
-- Sharz 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, so I just noticed how you have all your number on your userpage (like #of edits, number of mainspace, most edited ect - very impressive by the way, for me since i didn't know how to use preview I'll probably have like 99 percent non-mainspace edits) - where do you get that info, I've been looking for a good edit tracker like that. Thanks! Daniel()Folsom T| C| U 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna Branch) (UTHR (J)) The University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna Branch) (UTHR (J)) was formed in 1988 as part of the national UTHR. It no longer operates out of the University, following the murder of one of its founding members in 1989 and the withdrawal of many of its members from Jaffna in 1990. Their occasional reports on human rights are accessible via http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/UTHR (J)/UTHR (J).htm#UTHR (J). The work of the UTHR (J) is partly funded by the European Human Rights Foundation. [3] User:RaveenS —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
I created Assassinations and murders during the Sri Lankan civil war article by merging two articles, one was Attributed to the LTTE and the other to the government. Both were unstable and always had the tinge of POV over them and were cause of lot of edit wars. So I merged them and created this to minimize the conflict. When you have time, can you look over it please ? Thanks RaveenS
FWIW I know enough not to end up getting thumped for spouting political opinions in Buenos Aires, were I lucky enough to ever visit that city. And the same can be said for cities in the UK like Plymouth too, because people died in the war who would otherwise still be alive and I recognise feelings still run very strongly, SqueakBox 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Your comments in the AfD were added before two related articles were added to it as a group nomination. Please clarify whether your vote applies to all 3 or not. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct, it is a consequence of the attribution rules on the GFDL. See WP:MERGE. (This is one reason some of the other Wikimedia projects don't use the GFDL liscence but use more flexible ones). JoshuaZ 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems like the slightly better-sourced version of List of Peruvian Jews. I took a handful of redlinks and googled them. Here are some examples: [5], [6], ..even William Landau, M.D was recently deleted for not being notable. Aside from the sourced blue-links, many of which don't even describe the people as Mexicans. I have a feeling people won't delete this list if its up on AFD because they'll ignore the many red links and just focus on the few sourced ones, so I think the best approach may be to just redirect the list to List of Latin American Jews with all the blue-links. What do you think? Usedup 09:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It is my sense that batch AfD nominations should only be done when all articles nominated are substantially similar, so I think it was an error to include List of common Chinese surnames which is not in the same style as the rest. In that case, it should only have been listed individually, if at all. I've stricken it from the nomination, restricting the nomination to the remaining similar articles. Hopefully you can clarify your comment now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. Dmcdevit· t 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so much withdrawing the commercial failure AFD as I am relisting the articles separately, in individual AFD noms. In that way, a consensus to delete can still emerge for one or more of the articles. szyslak ( t, c) 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting Castle at WP:ACID. The article is in a shocking state and needs masses of work. You helped it stay on the list for another little while. Hopefully, it can get some more votes. Cheers, -- Dweller 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for standing up for Microsoft Office 14. It was my first brand-new article on Wikipedia and it had been "prodded" twice. I was ready to just let it die but I was very surprised to see someone sticking up for it. Thanks. :) White 720 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just letting you know that I reverted the formatting edit there accidentally, but if you look at the edit before that, Snowolfd4 deletes about 50% of the human rights section. -- Sharz 06:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. While it may be a little more difficult to distinguish between the actual text and the reference, the benefit of not having to scroll through all that text outways the burden. In any case, I never use that style of referencing, so the issue rarely comes up. Regards, KazakhPol 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The page read like it was right out of an official bio and you said that a source was needed to prove copyvio. I have found one [7]. Some parts have been cut, but several sections are word for word copyvio. -- Scorpion 04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you !voted early in this AfD. I can easily see how you arrived at your decision, base don information present in the debate at the time you !voted. If you are so inclined, would you please take a moment to review any new information that has been left since you last viewed it, and see if there is possibly basis to change your !vote? Thanks, Jerry lavoie 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've seen you give input under Articles for Deletion, and you appear to be fair and knowledgeable. I was checking up an article, UltraRogue and found the following:
Yet, I am unable to find the trail of where this deletion discussion took place, nor can I find any record of this action being taken under Lectonar's history. If you could please help me to follow what occurred and point me to wherever the log is, I would appreciate it.
Thank you Bbagot 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.
Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.
I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You recently fixed a mangling of two AfDs that were combined. This AfD notice still points to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_screen_capture_software. Is this the wrong place? Shouldn't it point to a AfD:List of screen recording software? I don't know how to fix this. Thanks. ( Requestion 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
In the articles for deletion discussion of List of films with disabled protagonists you commented that you thought the list should be deleted, but then stated that "A list of films about disabled persons or disabilities is a different matter." My understanding is that the " protagonist" of a film is by definition the person the film is about. The list itself may need clean-up, but I would expect that a list of films with disabled protagonists would in fact be a list of films that are about disabled people. I hope this is helpful. 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right about the album articles. I prodded them earlier in the day, before I'd made the AfD nomination. I'll de-prod them. Oldelpaso 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Userfied. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you do insert more information, it would meet WP:LIST as informative, and the argument for deletion would be no more. It could be hard to maintain over time, though? Punkmorten 09:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I nominated a group of articles for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames). However, a number of the articles had been considered for deletion not more than 2 days earlier and closed with a "no consensus, default keep" result (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames). I mistakenly perceived the discussion date to be 21 February 2006 instead of 2007. I would like to withdraw my nomination and call for a speedy close. However, a number of users have already voted to delete. Can I withdraw the nomination? Thank you, Black Falcon 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I adjusted {{ Oldcfdfull}}, if that's okay, and now it works as (I hope) you wanted. If you have questions or comments, feel free to leave a note. Gracenotes T § 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --— Indon ( reply) — 15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm formatting the book source given in the Dwight Gustafson article with {{ cite book}} per User:Uncle G's recommendation in the AfD. Could you please specify whether the page-numbers are for the paper-back or the hardcover edition (the ISBNs of the two are different). Thank you, Black Falcon 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear editor, since you also commented on this recent AfD, I would appreciate your input here: Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"#Arbitrary cut-off discussion. Best regards, -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take your time with the List of Tanzanians article. I'm not in a hurry and not trying to make a point. :) -- Ben 02:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
See, there's something that really wasn't acknowledged, that the only reason anyone can say "it's not a guide!" is because is can't be a guide. There's no one to guide, and no one can guide them yet, as it's unreleased. But when all of the other MP mini-game lists are about telling how to play them, what is to be expected? There's not been a precedence to put mini-game lists on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that it surviving has more to do with people liking the article more than feeling it adheres to policy and guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've userfied this to a subpage ( User:Black Falcon/Sandbox/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)) per your request at the AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon, I first noticed your work in AFD. Excellent work writing articles, saving worthwhile articles, sourcing articles, merging articles, and general insightful contributions. Have an award! I would like to nominate you for adminship! Are you interested? — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-07 12:34Z
With respect to the list of German actors and some administrative details, I really need you to register an e-mail in your preferences. You can make a yahoo account in less than a few minutes and use it exclusively for wikipedia. You'll understand why I'm asking when you get my first email. Usedup 01:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I was about to AfD, but seeing your comments I 'll wait another week. Your problem is the several different fields: is it particularly as a sociologist, or as a popular writer or what? If you can focus on one and actually prove it, I'll be glad to support the article. DGG 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
All articles were deleted dispite the voting againgt deletion. All images werre deleted as well.-- Dojarca 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you removed the prod notice from the article. I still don't think an article is needed so I put it up for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You recently participted in an AFD on Terrorism in Kazakhstan. Your input on a proposed page move is desired. Regards, KazakhPol 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thank's for leaving me the message about that. The page, as initially created, contained a link and mention that multiple members of the band went to form the band GWAR. According to wiki guidelines that should qualify them for notability. I've readded that information and removed the header. Tomb Ride My Talk 02:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon, this is a bit late but I'd just like to query your contestation of the {{ prod}} for Pop feminism. I originally tagged the page as original research because of its complete lack of references. I say this for the simple reason that 5 of the references (numbers 2-6) are not notable or published on reliable sources (the 5th reference is also broken) - the fact that there is 1 newspaper article about pop feminism doesn't mean it deserves its own article. As I have posted on the talk page there are some throw-away references made to pop feminism but I can't say that there is either a definition or clarification of the term in any academic source that I've come across. When the article itself says: "There is no proof pop feminism is an actual feminist philosophy; it seems to be an observed phenomenon in society or the media" it is correct. I am anxious to do something about this article whether expand, merge or delete - its current state is a mess. What are your views on the article?-- Cailil 12:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
To respond to your concerns:
As for removing the PROD tags, I checked through my edit history and you and GroggyDice have removed all of them. As you might have guessed, I'm a deletionist, and I think I still view these authors as failing WP:BIO, as they fail to assert their notability through 'secondary sources that are reliable, distinct, and independent of the subject'. But, this isn't my encyclopedia, and life will go on. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. Happy wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 14:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I responded to your request on my talk page. Thanks. — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The user seems to be more interested in ranting and making vague legal threats than finding reliable sources for his articles. If you think that Roger J. Geronimo is notable, I will not object if you remove the prod tag (although I would greatly appreciate if the sources were standardized since Hartal seems to only use the hard to reach caches for reasons I don't understand). Similar comments apply to the currently under AfD Rochelle Holt. JoshuaZ 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up Studios Architecture - the prod was mostly because it was a huge WP:COI/ WP:AUTO violation. It got me upset because then after that the user changed names which I thought was extremely fishy. I wanted somebody not affiliated to take a look, or let it fall off the map. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. That title, I think, will work better. Still, I'm not sure it holds up to Wikipedia's standards, but that can change - so I'm going with a "weak keep or merge" vote due to ambiguity (here, I'm focusing also on something like WP:LOCAL, as these people are notable amongst practicioners of homeopathy), but thinking that the article might not stand on its own and be better if it were merged into the Homeopathy article itself - but hedging a bet that it can live on its own. =^^= -- Dennisthe2 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The reason I moved the article (aside from the incorrect transliteration - Chazan is the German version of her name) was for consistency. For example, another MK, Yehiel Hazan, has the same name, but spelt differently (starting with an "H") on the Knesset website. There are plenty more examples (Haim vs Chaim etc), but unfortunately people take "official" Israeli translations as read, despite the fact there is no consistency (I believe there are some pages on the website where you can find more than two names spelt in different ways (one I know of which discusses presidents, talks about Chaim Weizmann, Haim Herzog and Ezer Weizman!)), and therefore Google searches to determine the "correct" spelling are effectively meaningless. I hope this is convincing enough not to move it back as I have recently started fixing mis-transliterations of Hebrew words/names (Qiryat -> Kiryat etc.) Number 57 09:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a second look at the article on Digital Strategy. I've been working on making edits based on guidance from Ronz and he felt it might be worthwhile for someone else to take a look. I've updated all the references (where possible) to link directly to their online sources and included page numbers (again where relevent). In addition, there are two other references which were removed as either COI or violating WP:SOURCE - self published and was wondering on what your take was now that the links have been added to the articles directly. Thanks for any help you can provide! -- Zyaar 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments and perspective. I think it will help focus the discussions about the article. Thanks! -- Ronz 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Black Falcon. This is great, constructive criticism and definitely gives me a roadmap to follow for any of my contributions to this topic. -- Zyaar 13:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I updated my essay quite a bit, thought you'd want to take a look. Cheers, Mango juice talk 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 01:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"intellectually independent" as you added it at Bio could be an interesting addition to WP:N. -- Kevin Murray 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You edited a criterion in WP:N down to "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject." removing the part about "independent of each other." So consider the case that I want to write about something which happenened say in 1880 through 1900 and the only online source I have for those years is the New York Times. If I find say 12 articles about the subject in that one source, they are independent of the subject but not of each other. Is that the making of an adequately referenced article? This leaves it for others to add references from books or from other publications of the period. Could someone argue legitimately that it should be deleted for lack of multiple references "independent of each other?" They could have before your edit but not after. This is not a hypothetical case, because I have relied on that one source for the reason stated. Edison 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Assassinations_and_murders_attributed_to_the_LTTE#redirect please respond on this ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ Talk 14:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The cruelist is generally being left to die of old age, but my preferred method would be for the tribe to leave me out on the ice where I'd gradually just become numb before succumbing! Noroton 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the debate closed with a merge result, and you indicated you'd be willing to do the merging of the content. Since you seem to be have been online a few minutes ago, I figured I'd leave a message to you before doing anything else. If you don't feel like doing it right now, I'll remove the afd tags and add in the {{ afdmergeto}} templates, but in the meantime, I won't be touching them. The title of the merge target is up to you. Thanks. - Bobet 18:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Trampton 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I've merged all of the items from the various lists back into the core article for now. I imagine that once I get it trimmed down and looking more encyclopedic the article won't need to be branched out. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the articles that were deleted have been recreated. I just thought I would point it out to you - Ozzykhan 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just rv'ing another step farther back when you did a second before me on Ethnic group Thanks.-- Xiahou 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that an Afd that you previously voted on, Maximilian Roos, was relisted due to some of the contributors sockpuppeting. I have revoted along with my original opinion. Laughhead 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The Afd was closed as delete - do you think that was the correct decision? One vote was struck that came from an IP user with >300 edits, another that had many edits but from a while ago. Does the remaining 3-2 demonstrate consensus? I'm not a regular wikipedia user so would be interested to know your opinion. Laughhead 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your lengthly reply. I will have a think and may post on DRV. Laughhead 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have posted it here. Wikipedia:Deletion review Laughhead 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)