![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Congrats on your RfA and your welcome, when I reviewed your edits I was very impressed. Æon Insanity Now! 04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
... for your AfD comment about John Hochman, acknowledging the work I put into expanding the article with reputable sourced citations. That was very nice of you and unexpected, thanks. Yours, Smee 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
Hi Black Falcon! This is the user Valusa (check out my user page). I have a question. What is the request for adminship? From:Valusa-- Valusa 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You can delete it, the article it was used for got deleted-- Migospia †♥ 07:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Someone found a use-- Migospia †♥ 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Tangeline has been redirected to Evangeline Williamson. that is so insulting and wrong, no one I saw nor did I say to redirect there, I thought we all agreed to delete, redirect and merge into One Life to Live, then delete the other 26+ soap couple, why close the discussion and then change the agreement all on your on?-- Migospia †♥ 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
How the hell do I do that?-- Migospia †♥ 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC) nvm and whenever the others put up for deletion let me know, Cheers-- Migospia †♥ 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon! The request for adminship sounds cool! Im going to have to wait some time for it. But I hope to get nominated someday! From:-- Valusa 07:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have not seen this much unanimous endorsement in the last one year. That speaks volumes about you as a person. Keep up the good work. Taprobanus 14:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Black Falcon/Archive 3, and thank you so much for your support in my recent
RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again!
Krakatoa
Katie 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton. |
![]() |
Hi! I created an about Septarian nodules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septarian_nodule Would you mind looking at it and editing it? thanks! Neptunekh 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This Stokke deletion loop is amusing and I keep trying to point things out however I'm afraid of doing anything really WP:BOLD because I hope one day to become an admin and I have a feeling being bold on an article that has, ironically, become the wikipedia controversy of the month over whether being the newspapers controversy of the month is notable would make me unelectable. If Tony doesn't change his stance what shall happen? –– Lid( Talk) 18:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on your admin promotion, if I had seen your RFA i whould had supported it. Anyway, hope to see ya around! Flubeca (t) 14:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC) |
Well, that was a huge waste of everyones time.
I'm not blaming you, I just wish someone with more experience of these issues had closed the AfD. - Francis Tyers · 06:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello Black Falcon, keeping in line with the policy for WP:DRV, I would very much like if you could, take a second look at the Article I nominated for AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination) . As this is my second nomination for this article, and having acted on the advice of the previous closing administrator, [1] , the final course of action open to me would appear to be WP:DRV. If you would, could you possibly outline the rational used in arriving at your determination. As outlined in the previous discussion, I felt I made every effort this time to offer a “good strong refutation”, of the arguments, and although the discussion did not generate the level I interest I had hoped for, (having been listed on both the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature ) I did not feel that this would have a negative affect, in fact quite the opposite. I look forward to hearing from you, thanking you in advance, Kind Regards, -- Domer48 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It is very interesting, only the anti-hungarian sentiment article has been deleted, although most of the voters (8 of them), who said to delete the article (14 delete votes) agreed to the deletion only, if the other articles go too. Baxter9 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I need someone to protect the Kazi Nazrul Islam page because of the recent vadalism by many IP address to that page. So if you could do that would be really nice and it would help stop further vandalism. R d the savior 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. First time I have ever done this, but I just blanked two user pages, on inappropriate content grounds - although I doubt that many would disagree with that ;O).
The question is: should I take this to WP:ANI to get the page histories removed? FlowerpotmaN ( t · c) 00:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I nominated User:SqlPac's userboxes for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SqlPac. After a discussion, two of them were deleted and I withdrew the nomination on the other five. Now the user is threatening to nominate other userboxes that he considers inflammatory because he thinks I set a bad precedent. (Please see my talk page.) I want to ignore him, but I'm not sure if that's the best idea. What do you recommend? Yechiel Man 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Your the man. You really are making Wikipedia a better place, keep up the good work. And thats a really cool name! Holla Back yo! Signed: K to the fizzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishan prasad ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon. You recently prodded the article Zakspeed 861. I have removed the {{ prod}} tag for the moment. The article has been expanded considerably and has been brought to the attention of the WikiProject Formula One. The same focus has led to the improvement of Zakspeed 841, where the prod tag was already removed (by someone else). If you disagree with my removing the tag, you may obviously nominate the article for AFD. A ecis Brievenbus 22:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi their. Well the template originally had the logo of the team next to the name as well, and it was used in the Iraqi football pages, but someone found some rule and declared it to be wrong of using the logo and the template. I dont know what to do now. Chaldean 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd just like to thank you for your detailed closure of this AFD. I hope that the editors interested in keeping this article will take them to heart and work to improve the page with them in mind. Maybe they won't give the words much credence coming from me, but perhaps you'll be seen as a neutral party. Thanks again! FrozenPurpleCube 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather that you would like the lists userfied if the closing decision was to delete them. I have closed the discussion, deleting 15 lists and retaining 11 lists as "no consensus, relist at discretion". Which of the thus far deleted lists would you like me to userfy? I'd be happy to userfy all 15, but am concerned that the fix-up of so many lists simultaneously could prove overwhelming. However, if you want them, just let me know at my talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Stunt? There is an anonymous IP opposing the Afd, which in itself is fine. However, the edit where he claimed to be a rather well-known member of the British journalistic profession, I think, might have gone a tad too far. (I signed it for him, and it was quickly reverted :O)) FlowerpotmaN ( t · c) 02:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Black Falcon. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:WPNN, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WP:WPNN. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Diez2 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
What, you're surprised there's a question? I am very cognizant of the work that you did in closing this AFD however for this one list I think the no consensus closure warrants another look. This isn't a list of songs about weather. It's merely a list of songs that mention a weather phenomenon in the title. Given that "List of songs whose title..." lists have been uniformly deleted at AFD over the last couple of weeks, I hope you'll take anoher look at whether it's reasonable to delete this one as well. Otto4711 03:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to commend you on being brave enough to take on this for the closure, and intelligent/creative enough to find a relatively pleasing solution. Thanks! Dimitrii 00:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the very kind words and vote of confidence. However, it will really be a relief to drop the nice guy act and be free to aggressively pursue my real agenda.
Seriously though, if you have any insights or advice that you've picked up in the process of learning the admin ropes, I would welcome them. No pressure though.-- Kubigula ( talk) 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This debate has been underwhelmed by the response of previously active editors. Unfortunately, I've been far too busy myself to bring my full attention to bear, and I'd like to ask you to pop in and bring up arguments that have gone underrepresented. This would be much more eloquent but I've stayed up to the wee hours of the night about this again. Thanks. -- Kizor 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
In the edit you made here, you had the summary "the *deleting* admin should seek consensus; regardless of what one thinks about BLP deletions, this does *not* apply to all processes". However, the version you reverted to also says that this rule applies to all deletion processes -- just wondering what you really wanted to say? Silas Snider (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It is annoying when people can't give an actual reason for why they consider something non-notable enough to have it deleted, and this template encourages that kind of behaviour. I was just about to to nominate it for deletion when I saw that it had actually very recently survived a nomination by you. (I had actually thought about this for a few weeks but never noticed the nomination...)
I think the "informative edit summary" that is already on the WP:PROD page needs to be made compulsory (as in "if you do this more than twice, you are blocked for disruption and banned for eternity from prodding stuff") and complemented by a demand for a "informative reason", one that actually gives a short summary of a. what an article is about (needed for the summary list at WP:PRODSUM), and b. why it should be deleted. People who can't give that much of an explanation have no business prodding articles in the first place. Pharamond 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the change you made to the Wikipdian pilots category. The vast majority of the members of the cat, including myself, are private pilots but not pilots by profession. This has been discussed before, take a gander at the history. Regads, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think maybe there's a point that's being missed here. There are many BLP deletions that should not be recreated even if the first article was poor. This isn't a mandate not to create articles, its just a sanity check first to make sure there isn't something more behind the deletion than a contributor realizes. Shell babelfish 23:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the delsort project is trying to organise and rationalise the lists. You have recently done some work on the Americas page, so before I propose on List control that we close this one down, do you have any strong feelings one way or the other regarding its usefulness? John Vandenberg 06:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I posted notice in ANI and no admin wants to touch it because it deals with an admin’s actions in the periphery but in reality it deals with the outcome of the action of the admin not the admin actions. It has to do with the continual harassment of me that has to stop. Any help will be appreciated. Taprobanus 12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[9] Time to block him :) EliasAlucard| Talk 18:50 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I finally replied to your week old comment over at Template talk:Trivia - search page for "schoolhouse rock".
Thanks, btw, for being a calming voice on that page - though I disagree with your fundamental point about trivia sections, I think we agree on the severity of the problem. It is not much of one. For me, the irritant now is that there are many thousands of these tags that have been spammed unnecessarily, and there's no "undo" button. Tempshill 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Wiki is in big trouble. I have the impression that you are one of the higher up editors here. If this is so, I suggest you call a meeting to review the basic principles of this enterprise.
As an outsider, my impression of Wikipedia WAS close to what can be found in the Whats So Great About Wikipedia article (or essay, if you want to be pedantic). Maybe it was accurate some years ago, but now, to me its more like a collection of minimum effort UNSIGNED grammer school book reports. This is a direct result of the editorial policies that make the ideals presented in that essay a complete lie. JO 753 04:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
See what
Snowolfd4 did to
your cake. Damn idiot took a slice while I went to take
your Falooda. Anyway I brought a
slice of Flourless Chocolate Cake to celebrate your Adminship, hip hip hurray
--
♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪
walkie-talkie 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh well on the deletion. I created the category long ago, but being not-too-active nowadays, didn't see the UCD discussion. Only a couple editors ever added it, in any case.
I'm not quite there, however, with the idea that the category was strictly a Myspace-style thing. Obscurantism, perhaps: but philosophical nominalism actually does have something to do with an editing philosophy, in terms of what things should be meaningfully listed and categorized, or the approach to general terms as article titles. On the other hand, making the category might indeed have been a sly sort of deliberate pragmatic self-contradiction. LotLE× talk 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I see that you were the closing admin for the deletion of this user category. The discussion was rather limited to achieve consensus with only two editors participating. My argument, if I had known of the deletion debate, would have been that it has nothing to do with social networking, those of us who keep Shabbat simply do not edit during that day of the week— specifically in terms of collaboration, we won't reply to queries asked to us during that time. As not replying to someone for a day or so can get some people kind of worked up, it's nice if there's a reason you can point to. I'm not sure if this belongs in a deletion review or what, but I thought I'd address you first. By the way, Shabbat starts tonight, so I may not be able to reply to what you write right away. Cheers! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think I've congratulated you on your successful RfA. Sorry. I'm sure you're using the mop well. Xiner ( talk) 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess in retrospect, the edits could have been better worded and balacned. Thanks for pointing this out. I am pretty new to all this. Cheers, Sinhala freedom 03:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded below image which I found in flickr, I know flickr images can be uploaded to wikipedia provided they are attributed, but I am not sure which licensing tag is appropriate. Could you kindly check and fix this NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 17:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with it. I ran into that template reverting some silly page creations by a friend of the template's creator (I assume). Since I don't have much template experience I figured I'd nominate it for TfD and see where it went. I'll tag similar ones for speedy deletion in the future. Cheers! Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I am considering requesting a DRV on the AfD that you closed. By my count, there were 18 deletes, and 15 keeps, but at least 8 of the keeps were the direct result of last-minute canvassing by the author of the article. If we take the canvassing into account, it seems that there was a clear consensus (18-7) to delete. I don't wish to disparage you as the closer, but I think you made a mistake here. Do you have any thoughts you wish to add before I decide how to proceed? - Crockspot 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the previous consensus - not simply on the fact that today more people showed up supporting position A than position B.
Bula Black Falcon
thanks for the heads up I got a bit over zealous without knowing the appropriate place to place the wiki fiji project tags won't make the same mistake twice. have a good day.
Vinaka Maikeli MB 02:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
put the Tag on the template, man I keep putting my foot in my mouth...anyway thanks again for the heads up, what was trying to do was create the side box on the user page somehow I made the template and then I tried to delete it and it stayed so then I played around with the format but I ended up just copying the info to my user page once I had sorted out my user page I did not know how to remove the template, anyway problem solved have a good day.
Vinaka MB MB 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I would ask that you withdraw this Request for the time being. Jeffrey has expressed a willingness to make more meaningful replies and a look at this talkpage shows a definite change in his altitude. Nick 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is something malformed about your starting discussion for Category:Wikipedia non-brave administrator on UCfD. I do not understand it. My comment there is actually wrong. Clicking on the edit brings up the template you used and that is protected. -- Bduke 02:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, partly as a warning against using it, a flawed argument in your nomination. "...having an interest in making movies is not the same as having an interest in editing articles about filmmaking." Well, last I checked I didn't see any categories named "Wikipedians interested in editing articles about music/math/haiku/etc". It's assumed that many Wikipedia editors actually edit in their areas of real-life interest. I respect your large efforts at UCFD, Black Falcon, and there is no doubt in my mind you nominated this category in good faith. Please take care not to include poor rationales in your nominations—they detract from the valid points. If you don't have enough good reasons to cite in the deletion nomination, consider not nominating that category. Look at it another way: there are probably many user cats more deserving of deletion and by seeking out those low hanging categories you can accomplish more with your limited time, because the deletion rationales for those will require less defence. BigNate37 (T) 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses should be created with some of the content in the page, but that leaves just trivia on the page. Per WP:FIVE, WP is not a "trivia collection", which I understand to mean that trivia cant stand by itself. Do you think another AFD would be warranted in 1-2 weeks if the list is moved and the page consists solely of trivia? Corpx 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am confused by the no consensus closure. If you're discounting the notability by association arguments then there's basically nothing left but deletion !votes per WP:PLOT. Otto4711 12:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you, Black Falcon, for participating in
my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). |
Thanks for fixing that typo on UCFD. I was trying to fix it when you fixed it; I do scan through to look for that sort of thing. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if you read the relevant section on the talk page or not before removing the template (I didn't see you comment there or anything). Richard001 06:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Re your message: Sorry to spoil you fun. =) I was looking through Recent Changes in the userspace and saw you were reverting a bunch of stuff, so I went and took a look. Once I recognized SummerThunder ("Hey, didn't I block that account?"), I jumped in and deleted all the random Category pages and blocked the accounts. I also protected all of the various sockpuppet tagged userpages as he always edits his old accounts. One of these days, I hope that guy gives up. Wishful thinking, probably. =\ -- Gogo Dodo 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Dunno why it was, I made a null edit to the person's userpage and it purged the category. All clear for deletion now. And thanks for the heads up on the other note. ^ demon [omg plz] 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
At first you made the comment
Rfwoolf, Guy's personal attack does not justify your name-calling ("cronies"). Please refrain from such comments. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
At first I saw this as a sarcastic rebuttle, rather unfair, to let Guy's comment slide and pick me out for something that's a bit of a stretch. However I have seen your comment to Guy on the talk page, however buried, and would like to thank you. My concerns of your bias are now relieved. Rfwoolf 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I ran across your idea for a bot on the bot request page. I don't know much about bots, but I think this is a great idea, even for pretty old articles. I don't think it's unusual that there's an older article that nobody stumbled on yet but is clearly spam or whatever. I don't know about the timing of checking them all, but I think it would be worth it. I would like to see this done, just to get a sense of how many of these there are. If this gets made, drop me a line to check out what the results are. Rigadoun (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Just thought I'd give you a bit of praise for the way you tried to calm the flames on User talk:JzG - a perfect example of being both an admin and civil! I was merely reading the raging debate and realised that your comments seemed to be the only ones without a hidden agenda and without taking sides.
Didn't seem like anybody else was going to say it, so there - I have. Well done! Two small edits that tried to have a large effect, largely over looked by two sides of a debate that was obviously going nowhere fast.
Best wishes,
– MDCollins ( talk) 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I need help. I am a model trying to submit myself to wiki. A lot of my photographs have the photographer's logo on them. I am the model in these photos and have rights to these photos. I don't understand what I need to do in order to submit my photos. Could you help me with this please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katelynkostlich ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to inform you, that
Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence page in which you voted for keep was speedy-deleted by
User_talk:Radiant citing that it was an attack page. A good-willed editor has already listed it in Deletion Review, you can find the discussion currently ensuing here:
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_12#User:Rfwoolf.2FEvidence
Naturally, you may be too busy or not interested and of course I respect that. I am merely informing you. Thank you
Rfwoolf 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you made an edit on User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson concerning his speedy deletions on numerous articles. He happened to delete two of my photos that I personally took posted on the Brimstone article, and ensured that they were put in under free-use according to wiki guidelines. There was no reason for them to be deleted, and he did so without a blink of an eye. Considering you are an administrator, I was hoping that you could help me with this situation as so they may be restored. I appreciate your help, and thank you in advance for your cooperation. WrestlefnLI 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your comments on user Jeffrey_O._Gustafson's talk page relating to his speedy deletions. I figured I'd try to appeal to your sense of fairness on this matter, when I noticed that another user had already contacted you concerning the same article. Maybe you could help me to resolve my issue with user Jeffrey_O._Gustafson, or at least help me get on the right track to getting my image(s) restored. Thank you. -- YeLLeY511 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on the Africa Portal/featured article issue. As I understand you are the only one working on is at the moment, so I'll follow your judgment on the featured articles as they are displayed. It looks fine as it is, except the read more... links are missing at the bottom (or alternatively the article name can be wikilinked from the preview itself). I'll see if I can fix this.
I'm quite busy IRL at the moment but if I have more time I will try helping you out some with the portal, as I've been looking for some new project to work on and Africa is one of my favorite subjects (mostly the North & West as I've been there a couple of times).
Feer 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Template:Infobox Military Conflict (4 sided), which you created, is currently unused and seems to have fulfilled the purpose it was created for. If there is no particular reason to retain it, would you mind tagging it for deletion with {{ db-author}}? Thanks, Black Falcon ( Talk) 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Psstt--it's Horologium, not Hologrium. (smile) Horologium actually means something (check the Wikipedia article); I don't think Hologrium is a word in any language. Horologium t- c 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a ratel for you! Ratels somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Hús ö nd 01:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hah! That was funny, but next time please don't provide a link to the new user log. That sight causes me to compulsively drool and swoon. :-D Carnivoresque regards, Hús ö nd 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was unsure what to do exactly. Most of the subcategories only have lowercase within the text but this is the only one where a country is named. If you think a change is better please feel free. Peter Rehse 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It's funny, you're already the third user who has offered to nominate me for adminship since early June. Apparently the first two were not aware of my past history...
I'll accept a nomination when I feel almost certain that I will pass RFA. Otherwise, I don't think it's worth the bother. When I feel the time is right, I will give you a heads-up if I remember. Best regards, Shalom Hello 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Response at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification#Downsides of the proposal Jeepday ( talk) 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
At least three editors (myself, User:Roger Davies, and User:Crum375, have registered strong objection in the past few hours to the change you want to make. You need to build consensus further before making a change to a core policy. - Crockspot 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to be a nag, but citing your user page:
Encyclopedicity — Article topics should be notable and articles must exclude content that is unencyclopedic.
Does this not clearly indicate that both should be deleted? AG III is so far only significant as a chapter of AG II's life. --Indeed, not to minimize the sad accident that he suffered and how this may have affected AG II's political career. All the more the reason why this material should be incorporated in the AG II article, in truncated form. Dogru144 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the DRV. Obviously, I didn't actually early-close the thing, but I'm still not convinced that it wouldn't have benefitted everyone if I had ended the discussion on Saturday and said enough already. I am a fairly strong proponent of due process, but there comes a time when some things are just not worth talking about any more, and this was one of them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I created an article called Greek Agate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate Would you mind looking at it and cleaning up or editing it? Thanks! Neptunekh 04:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This article: English Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador. It says the original was deleted or something but there doesn't seem to be any deletion logs . . . should I just revert back to the old revert or smack a cleanup tag on it? Or has it been deleted and the name changed? - WarthogDemon 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Anytime pal :-) -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping you could do me a favour or two. I've a couple concerns that require attention, and my posting them at the pump and the template's talk page, respectively, have not had any results yet. The first is something I'm hesitant to do due to a conflict of interest explained at WP:VP/A#Dubious statement at SaskTel's article and at Talk:SaskTel/Archives/2013#Controversies, and the other is about a protected template on the main page, mentioned at Template talk:In the news#Brazilian plan crash. Thanks for whatever help you can lend, BigNate37 (T) 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously he's not listening to it, do you think it's too early to start considering an RfAr, or should we not even go that way (sorry, but I had a run in with him before, and personally, I want him to shape up). Kwsn (Ni!) 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you comment on: Deletion_policy#.22Problem_articles.22_tables? Thanks :) FT2 ( Talk | email) 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't cause anyone's computer to crash did I? Because I actually reported this to NawlinWiki. >_> - WarthogDemon 23:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I reported it as vandalism, but just to let you know: one of the fake airlines is back today, after you deleted them and warned Xamdi yesterday. If I was an admin, I would block indefinitely. That's probably why I'm not an admin. Kww 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm contacting you in reference to your participation in the Paul Harris deletion discussion. That article, among others, has been nominated for deletion and I think many of the arguments you made on Paul Harris can be applied to the current discussion. Thanks. Chengwes 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to turn your attention to the the acts of User:Iwazaki here. He takes off a citation to a book. Though taking off this citation does not affect the article I am worried that without this citation this article could be put for a AFD or might be added with different tags (like NPOV/OR ect). I would like for you to take a look. Thanks Watchdogb 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. You deleted this article after a solid debate. I was wondering if it is possible for administrators to find the text of deleted articles such as this. I'm hoping to recreate this article (while asserting its notability), but want to make sure that I'm not re-hashing what's already been rehashed. Thanks.-- Eva b d 16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, since this article has been recreated, I think it still might be worth looking at in regards to Notability. I'm not concerned enough about it to put it on AFD yet, but I think it's still worth looking at. FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 3 August 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Congrats on your RfA and your welcome, when I reviewed your edits I was very impressed. Æon Insanity Now! 04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
... for your AfD comment about John Hochman, acknowledging the work I put into expanding the article with reputable sourced citations. That was very nice of you and unexpected, thanks. Yours, Smee 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
Hi Black Falcon! This is the user Valusa (check out my user page). I have a question. What is the request for adminship? From:Valusa-- Valusa 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You can delete it, the article it was used for got deleted-- Migospia †♥ 07:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Someone found a use-- Migospia †♥ 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Tangeline has been redirected to Evangeline Williamson. that is so insulting and wrong, no one I saw nor did I say to redirect there, I thought we all agreed to delete, redirect and merge into One Life to Live, then delete the other 26+ soap couple, why close the discussion and then change the agreement all on your on?-- Migospia †♥ 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
How the hell do I do that?-- Migospia †♥ 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC) nvm and whenever the others put up for deletion let me know, Cheers-- Migospia †♥ 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon! The request for adminship sounds cool! Im going to have to wait some time for it. But I hope to get nominated someday! From:-- Valusa 07:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have not seen this much unanimous endorsement in the last one year. That speaks volumes about you as a person. Keep up the good work. Taprobanus 14:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Black Falcon/Archive 3, and thank you so much for your support in my recent
RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again!
Krakatoa
Katie 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton. |
![]() |
Hi! I created an about Septarian nodules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septarian_nodule Would you mind looking at it and editing it? thanks! Neptunekh 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This Stokke deletion loop is amusing and I keep trying to point things out however I'm afraid of doing anything really WP:BOLD because I hope one day to become an admin and I have a feeling being bold on an article that has, ironically, become the wikipedia controversy of the month over whether being the newspapers controversy of the month is notable would make me unelectable. If Tony doesn't change his stance what shall happen? –– Lid( Talk) 18:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on your admin promotion, if I had seen your RFA i whould had supported it. Anyway, hope to see ya around! Flubeca (t) 14:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC) |
Well, that was a huge waste of everyones time.
I'm not blaming you, I just wish someone with more experience of these issues had closed the AfD. - Francis Tyers · 06:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello Black Falcon, keeping in line with the policy for WP:DRV, I would very much like if you could, take a second look at the Article I nominated for AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination) . As this is my second nomination for this article, and having acted on the advice of the previous closing administrator, [1] , the final course of action open to me would appear to be WP:DRV. If you would, could you possibly outline the rational used in arriving at your determination. As outlined in the previous discussion, I felt I made every effort this time to offer a “good strong refutation”, of the arguments, and although the discussion did not generate the level I interest I had hoped for, (having been listed on both the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature ) I did not feel that this would have a negative affect, in fact quite the opposite. I look forward to hearing from you, thanking you in advance, Kind Regards, -- Domer48 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It is very interesting, only the anti-hungarian sentiment article has been deleted, although most of the voters (8 of them), who said to delete the article (14 delete votes) agreed to the deletion only, if the other articles go too. Baxter9 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I need someone to protect the Kazi Nazrul Islam page because of the recent vadalism by many IP address to that page. So if you could do that would be really nice and it would help stop further vandalism. R d the savior 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. First time I have ever done this, but I just blanked two user pages, on inappropriate content grounds - although I doubt that many would disagree with that ;O).
The question is: should I take this to WP:ANI to get the page histories removed? FlowerpotmaN ( t · c) 00:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I nominated User:SqlPac's userboxes for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SqlPac. After a discussion, two of them were deleted and I withdrew the nomination on the other five. Now the user is threatening to nominate other userboxes that he considers inflammatory because he thinks I set a bad precedent. (Please see my talk page.) I want to ignore him, but I'm not sure if that's the best idea. What do you recommend? Yechiel Man 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Your the man. You really are making Wikipedia a better place, keep up the good work. And thats a really cool name! Holla Back yo! Signed: K to the fizzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishan prasad ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon. You recently prodded the article Zakspeed 861. I have removed the {{ prod}} tag for the moment. The article has been expanded considerably and has been brought to the attention of the WikiProject Formula One. The same focus has led to the improvement of Zakspeed 841, where the prod tag was already removed (by someone else). If you disagree with my removing the tag, you may obviously nominate the article for AFD. A ecis Brievenbus 22:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. -- ChoChoPK (球球PK) ( talk | contrib) 00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi their. Well the template originally had the logo of the team next to the name as well, and it was used in the Iraqi football pages, but someone found some rule and declared it to be wrong of using the logo and the template. I dont know what to do now. Chaldean 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd just like to thank you for your detailed closure of this AFD. I hope that the editors interested in keeping this article will take them to heart and work to improve the page with them in mind. Maybe they won't give the words much credence coming from me, but perhaps you'll be seen as a neutral party. Thanks again! FrozenPurpleCube 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather that you would like the lists userfied if the closing decision was to delete them. I have closed the discussion, deleting 15 lists and retaining 11 lists as "no consensus, relist at discretion". Which of the thus far deleted lists would you like me to userfy? I'd be happy to userfy all 15, but am concerned that the fix-up of so many lists simultaneously could prove overwhelming. However, if you want them, just let me know at my talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Stunt? There is an anonymous IP opposing the Afd, which in itself is fine. However, the edit where he claimed to be a rather well-known member of the British journalistic profession, I think, might have gone a tad too far. (I signed it for him, and it was quickly reverted :O)) FlowerpotmaN ( t · c) 02:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Black Falcon. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:WPNN, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WP:WPNN. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Diez2 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
What, you're surprised there's a question? I am very cognizant of the work that you did in closing this AFD however for this one list I think the no consensus closure warrants another look. This isn't a list of songs about weather. It's merely a list of songs that mention a weather phenomenon in the title. Given that "List of songs whose title..." lists have been uniformly deleted at AFD over the last couple of weeks, I hope you'll take anoher look at whether it's reasonable to delete this one as well. Otto4711 03:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to commend you on being brave enough to take on this for the closure, and intelligent/creative enough to find a relatively pleasing solution. Thanks! Dimitrii 00:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the very kind words and vote of confidence. However, it will really be a relief to drop the nice guy act and be free to aggressively pursue my real agenda.
Seriously though, if you have any insights or advice that you've picked up in the process of learning the admin ropes, I would welcome them. No pressure though.-- Kubigula ( talk) 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This debate has been underwhelmed by the response of previously active editors. Unfortunately, I've been far too busy myself to bring my full attention to bear, and I'd like to ask you to pop in and bring up arguments that have gone underrepresented. This would be much more eloquent but I've stayed up to the wee hours of the night about this again. Thanks. -- Kizor 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
In the edit you made here, you had the summary "the *deleting* admin should seek consensus; regardless of what one thinks about BLP deletions, this does *not* apply to all processes". However, the version you reverted to also says that this rule applies to all deletion processes -- just wondering what you really wanted to say? Silas Snider (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It is annoying when people can't give an actual reason for why they consider something non-notable enough to have it deleted, and this template encourages that kind of behaviour. I was just about to to nominate it for deletion when I saw that it had actually very recently survived a nomination by you. (I had actually thought about this for a few weeks but never noticed the nomination...)
I think the "informative edit summary" that is already on the WP:PROD page needs to be made compulsory (as in "if you do this more than twice, you are blocked for disruption and banned for eternity from prodding stuff") and complemented by a demand for a "informative reason", one that actually gives a short summary of a. what an article is about (needed for the summary list at WP:PRODSUM), and b. why it should be deleted. People who can't give that much of an explanation have no business prodding articles in the first place. Pharamond 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the change you made to the Wikipdian pilots category. The vast majority of the members of the cat, including myself, are private pilots but not pilots by profession. This has been discussed before, take a gander at the history. Regads, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think maybe there's a point that's being missed here. There are many BLP deletions that should not be recreated even if the first article was poor. This isn't a mandate not to create articles, its just a sanity check first to make sure there isn't something more behind the deletion than a contributor realizes. Shell babelfish 23:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the delsort project is trying to organise and rationalise the lists. You have recently done some work on the Americas page, so before I propose on List control that we close this one down, do you have any strong feelings one way or the other regarding its usefulness? John Vandenberg 06:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I posted notice in ANI and no admin wants to touch it because it deals with an admin’s actions in the periphery but in reality it deals with the outcome of the action of the admin not the admin actions. It has to do with the continual harassment of me that has to stop. Any help will be appreciated. Taprobanus 12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[9] Time to block him :) EliasAlucard| Talk 18:50 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I finally replied to your week old comment over at Template talk:Trivia - search page for "schoolhouse rock".
Thanks, btw, for being a calming voice on that page - though I disagree with your fundamental point about trivia sections, I think we agree on the severity of the problem. It is not much of one. For me, the irritant now is that there are many thousands of these tags that have been spammed unnecessarily, and there's no "undo" button. Tempshill 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Wiki is in big trouble. I have the impression that you are one of the higher up editors here. If this is so, I suggest you call a meeting to review the basic principles of this enterprise.
As an outsider, my impression of Wikipedia WAS close to what can be found in the Whats So Great About Wikipedia article (or essay, if you want to be pedantic). Maybe it was accurate some years ago, but now, to me its more like a collection of minimum effort UNSIGNED grammer school book reports. This is a direct result of the editorial policies that make the ideals presented in that essay a complete lie. JO 753 04:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
See what
Snowolfd4 did to
your cake. Damn idiot took a slice while I went to take
your Falooda. Anyway I brought a
slice of Flourless Chocolate Cake to celebrate your Adminship, hip hip hurray
--
♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪
walkie-talkie 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh well on the deletion. I created the category long ago, but being not-too-active nowadays, didn't see the UCD discussion. Only a couple editors ever added it, in any case.
I'm not quite there, however, with the idea that the category was strictly a Myspace-style thing. Obscurantism, perhaps: but philosophical nominalism actually does have something to do with an editing philosophy, in terms of what things should be meaningfully listed and categorized, or the approach to general terms as article titles. On the other hand, making the category might indeed have been a sly sort of deliberate pragmatic self-contradiction. LotLE× talk 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I see that you were the closing admin for the deletion of this user category. The discussion was rather limited to achieve consensus with only two editors participating. My argument, if I had known of the deletion debate, would have been that it has nothing to do with social networking, those of us who keep Shabbat simply do not edit during that day of the week— specifically in terms of collaboration, we won't reply to queries asked to us during that time. As not replying to someone for a day or so can get some people kind of worked up, it's nice if there's a reason you can point to. I'm not sure if this belongs in a deletion review or what, but I thought I'd address you first. By the way, Shabbat starts tonight, so I may not be able to reply to what you write right away. Cheers! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think I've congratulated you on your successful RfA. Sorry. I'm sure you're using the mop well. Xiner ( talk) 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess in retrospect, the edits could have been better worded and balacned. Thanks for pointing this out. I am pretty new to all this. Cheers, Sinhala freedom 03:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded below image which I found in flickr, I know flickr images can be uploaded to wikipedia provided they are attributed, but I am not sure which licensing tag is appropriate. Could you kindly check and fix this NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 17:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with it. I ran into that template reverting some silly page creations by a friend of the template's creator (I assume). Since I don't have much template experience I figured I'd nominate it for TfD and see where it went. I'll tag similar ones for speedy deletion in the future. Cheers! Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I am considering requesting a DRV on the AfD that you closed. By my count, there were 18 deletes, and 15 keeps, but at least 8 of the keeps were the direct result of last-minute canvassing by the author of the article. If we take the canvassing into account, it seems that there was a clear consensus (18-7) to delete. I don't wish to disparage you as the closer, but I think you made a mistake here. Do you have any thoughts you wish to add before I decide how to proceed? - Crockspot 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the previous consensus - not simply on the fact that today more people showed up supporting position A than position B.
Bula Black Falcon
thanks for the heads up I got a bit over zealous without knowing the appropriate place to place the wiki fiji project tags won't make the same mistake twice. have a good day.
Vinaka Maikeli MB 02:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
put the Tag on the template, man I keep putting my foot in my mouth...anyway thanks again for the heads up, what was trying to do was create the side box on the user page somehow I made the template and then I tried to delete it and it stayed so then I played around with the format but I ended up just copying the info to my user page once I had sorted out my user page I did not know how to remove the template, anyway problem solved have a good day.
Vinaka MB MB 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I would ask that you withdraw this Request for the time being. Jeffrey has expressed a willingness to make more meaningful replies and a look at this talkpage shows a definite change in his altitude. Nick 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is something malformed about your starting discussion for Category:Wikipedia non-brave administrator on UCfD. I do not understand it. My comment there is actually wrong. Clicking on the edit brings up the template you used and that is protected. -- Bduke 02:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, partly as a warning against using it, a flawed argument in your nomination. "...having an interest in making movies is not the same as having an interest in editing articles about filmmaking." Well, last I checked I didn't see any categories named "Wikipedians interested in editing articles about music/math/haiku/etc". It's assumed that many Wikipedia editors actually edit in their areas of real-life interest. I respect your large efforts at UCFD, Black Falcon, and there is no doubt in my mind you nominated this category in good faith. Please take care not to include poor rationales in your nominations—they detract from the valid points. If you don't have enough good reasons to cite in the deletion nomination, consider not nominating that category. Look at it another way: there are probably many user cats more deserving of deletion and by seeking out those low hanging categories you can accomplish more with your limited time, because the deletion rationales for those will require less defence. BigNate37 (T) 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses should be created with some of the content in the page, but that leaves just trivia on the page. Per WP:FIVE, WP is not a "trivia collection", which I understand to mean that trivia cant stand by itself. Do you think another AFD would be warranted in 1-2 weeks if the list is moved and the page consists solely of trivia? Corpx 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am confused by the no consensus closure. If you're discounting the notability by association arguments then there's basically nothing left but deletion !votes per WP:PLOT. Otto4711 12:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you, Black Falcon, for participating in
my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). |
Thanks for fixing that typo on UCFD. I was trying to fix it when you fixed it; I do scan through to look for that sort of thing. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if you read the relevant section on the talk page or not before removing the template (I didn't see you comment there or anything). Richard001 06:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Re your message: Sorry to spoil you fun. =) I was looking through Recent Changes in the userspace and saw you were reverting a bunch of stuff, so I went and took a look. Once I recognized SummerThunder ("Hey, didn't I block that account?"), I jumped in and deleted all the random Category pages and blocked the accounts. I also protected all of the various sockpuppet tagged userpages as he always edits his old accounts. One of these days, I hope that guy gives up. Wishful thinking, probably. =\ -- Gogo Dodo 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Dunno why it was, I made a null edit to the person's userpage and it purged the category. All clear for deletion now. And thanks for the heads up on the other note. ^ demon [omg plz] 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
At first you made the comment
Rfwoolf, Guy's personal attack does not justify your name-calling ("cronies"). Please refrain from such comments. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
At first I saw this as a sarcastic rebuttle, rather unfair, to let Guy's comment slide and pick me out for something that's a bit of a stretch. However I have seen your comment to Guy on the talk page, however buried, and would like to thank you. My concerns of your bias are now relieved. Rfwoolf 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I ran across your idea for a bot on the bot request page. I don't know much about bots, but I think this is a great idea, even for pretty old articles. I don't think it's unusual that there's an older article that nobody stumbled on yet but is clearly spam or whatever. I don't know about the timing of checking them all, but I think it would be worth it. I would like to see this done, just to get a sense of how many of these there are. If this gets made, drop me a line to check out what the results are. Rigadoun (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Just thought I'd give you a bit of praise for the way you tried to calm the flames on User talk:JzG - a perfect example of being both an admin and civil! I was merely reading the raging debate and realised that your comments seemed to be the only ones without a hidden agenda and without taking sides.
Didn't seem like anybody else was going to say it, so there - I have. Well done! Two small edits that tried to have a large effect, largely over looked by two sides of a debate that was obviously going nowhere fast.
Best wishes,
– MDCollins ( talk) 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I need help. I am a model trying to submit myself to wiki. A lot of my photographs have the photographer's logo on them. I am the model in these photos and have rights to these photos. I don't understand what I need to do in order to submit my photos. Could you help me with this please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katelynkostlich ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to inform you, that
Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence page in which you voted for keep was speedy-deleted by
User_talk:Radiant citing that it was an attack page. A good-willed editor has already listed it in Deletion Review, you can find the discussion currently ensuing here:
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_12#User:Rfwoolf.2FEvidence
Naturally, you may be too busy or not interested and of course I respect that. I am merely informing you. Thank you
Rfwoolf 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you made an edit on User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson concerning his speedy deletions on numerous articles. He happened to delete two of my photos that I personally took posted on the Brimstone article, and ensured that they were put in under free-use according to wiki guidelines. There was no reason for them to be deleted, and he did so without a blink of an eye. Considering you are an administrator, I was hoping that you could help me with this situation as so they may be restored. I appreciate your help, and thank you in advance for your cooperation. WrestlefnLI 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your comments on user Jeffrey_O._Gustafson's talk page relating to his speedy deletions. I figured I'd try to appeal to your sense of fairness on this matter, when I noticed that another user had already contacted you concerning the same article. Maybe you could help me to resolve my issue with user Jeffrey_O._Gustafson, or at least help me get on the right track to getting my image(s) restored. Thank you. -- YeLLeY511 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on the Africa Portal/featured article issue. As I understand you are the only one working on is at the moment, so I'll follow your judgment on the featured articles as they are displayed. It looks fine as it is, except the read more... links are missing at the bottom (or alternatively the article name can be wikilinked from the preview itself). I'll see if I can fix this.
I'm quite busy IRL at the moment but if I have more time I will try helping you out some with the portal, as I've been looking for some new project to work on and Africa is one of my favorite subjects (mostly the North & West as I've been there a couple of times).
Feer 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Template:Infobox Military Conflict (4 sided), which you created, is currently unused and seems to have fulfilled the purpose it was created for. If there is no particular reason to retain it, would you mind tagging it for deletion with {{ db-author}}? Thanks, Black Falcon ( Talk) 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Psstt--it's Horologium, not Hologrium. (smile) Horologium actually means something (check the Wikipedia article); I don't think Hologrium is a word in any language. Horologium t- c 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a ratel for you! Ratels somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Hús ö nd 01:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hah! That was funny, but next time please don't provide a link to the new user log. That sight causes me to compulsively drool and swoon. :-D Carnivoresque regards, Hús ö nd 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was unsure what to do exactly. Most of the subcategories only have lowercase within the text but this is the only one where a country is named. If you think a change is better please feel free. Peter Rehse 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It's funny, you're already the third user who has offered to nominate me for adminship since early June. Apparently the first two were not aware of my past history...
I'll accept a nomination when I feel almost certain that I will pass RFA. Otherwise, I don't think it's worth the bother. When I feel the time is right, I will give you a heads-up if I remember. Best regards, Shalom Hello 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Response at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification#Downsides of the proposal Jeepday ( talk) 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
At least three editors (myself, User:Roger Davies, and User:Crum375, have registered strong objection in the past few hours to the change you want to make. You need to build consensus further before making a change to a core policy. - Crockspot 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to be a nag, but citing your user page:
Encyclopedicity — Article topics should be notable and articles must exclude content that is unencyclopedic.
Does this not clearly indicate that both should be deleted? AG III is so far only significant as a chapter of AG II's life. --Indeed, not to minimize the sad accident that he suffered and how this may have affected AG II's political career. All the more the reason why this material should be incorporated in the AG II article, in truncated form. Dogru144 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the DRV. Obviously, I didn't actually early-close the thing, but I'm still not convinced that it wouldn't have benefitted everyone if I had ended the discussion on Saturday and said enough already. I am a fairly strong proponent of due process, but there comes a time when some things are just not worth talking about any more, and this was one of them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I created an article called Greek Agate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_agate Would you mind looking at it and cleaning up or editing it? Thanks! Neptunekh 04:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This article: English Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador. It says the original was deleted or something but there doesn't seem to be any deletion logs . . . should I just revert back to the old revert or smack a cleanup tag on it? Or has it been deleted and the name changed? - WarthogDemon 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Anytime pal :-) -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping you could do me a favour or two. I've a couple concerns that require attention, and my posting them at the pump and the template's talk page, respectively, have not had any results yet. The first is something I'm hesitant to do due to a conflict of interest explained at WP:VP/A#Dubious statement at SaskTel's article and at Talk:SaskTel/Archives/2013#Controversies, and the other is about a protected template on the main page, mentioned at Template talk:In the news#Brazilian plan crash. Thanks for whatever help you can lend, BigNate37 (T) 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously he's not listening to it, do you think it's too early to start considering an RfAr, or should we not even go that way (sorry, but I had a run in with him before, and personally, I want him to shape up). Kwsn (Ni!) 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you comment on: Deletion_policy#.22Problem_articles.22_tables? Thanks :) FT2 ( Talk | email) 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't cause anyone's computer to crash did I? Because I actually reported this to NawlinWiki. >_> - WarthogDemon 23:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I reported it as vandalism, but just to let you know: one of the fake airlines is back today, after you deleted them and warned Xamdi yesterday. If I was an admin, I would block indefinitely. That's probably why I'm not an admin. Kww 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm contacting you in reference to your participation in the Paul Harris deletion discussion. That article, among others, has been nominated for deletion and I think many of the arguments you made on Paul Harris can be applied to the current discussion. Thanks. Chengwes 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to turn your attention to the the acts of User:Iwazaki here. He takes off a citation to a book. Though taking off this citation does not affect the article I am worried that without this citation this article could be put for a AFD or might be added with different tags (like NPOV/OR ect). I would like for you to take a look. Thanks Watchdogb 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. You deleted this article after a solid debate. I was wondering if it is possible for administrators to find the text of deleted articles such as this. I'm hoping to recreate this article (while asserting its notability), but want to make sure that I'm not re-hashing what's already been rehashed. Thanks.-- Eva b d 16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, since this article has been recreated, I think it still might be worth looking at in regards to Notability. I'm not concerned enough about it to put it on AFD yet, but I think it's still worth looking at. FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)