![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Black Falcon, do you mind looking into the article Sri Lanka. User snowolfd4 seems to have a problem with version I had originally written and seems to be cherry picking his sources. He has continous reverted to his version without any discussion in the last month or so. In particular he is claiming Sri Lanka underwant continous economic progress, when its a widely known fact that the economy went into a recession in 2001. Also he is claiming Sri Lanka is a stable democracy, when ranking from the Economist 57/80 democracies and the Failed State Index (where Sri Lanka ranks 25th) hardly makes the term stable plausible let alone fact. Thanks Sinhala freedom 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You closed the CFD for Category:Opponents of Alaska statehood and Category:Proponents of Alaska statehood as "listify and then delete both". At WP:CFD/W/M, you have listed two separate lists, one for opponents and one for proponents. Given that the lists will contain relatively little content at the start, and that the "opponents" category contains only six members, do you think a combined List of opponents and proponents of Alaska statehood would be more viable? My concern is to avoid a situation whereby one or both of the lists are deleted shortly after listification. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 17:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like serial mass tagging without any attempt at discussion in this article, can you kindly take a look at it please. Thanks Taprobanus 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Please tell how the following paragraph related to the article? All I can see,this is a pure attempt to deceive wikipedian readers with giving an impression that the this was done as a retaliation to an earlier attack on the forces.No problem having it as a source and but not the following sentence atg the top of the article .The killings took place two days after the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) launched a suicide assault on a naval convoy in which 18 sailors died.... Iwazaki 会話。討論 08:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you participated in the recent CfD of the category "Homophobia" [1]. It has been re-nominated for deletion, on the same grounds as before, and I was making sure you had an opportunity to present your interpretation of policy on this matter. The discussion can be found here. Best. -- Cheeser1 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. I had to hunt around for that award, but it seemed the most appropriate! -- Beloved Freak 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this article. I think this is what you were looking at when you wrote that Sri Lanka is amongst the worst place for media. [2] Watchdogb 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a question. You suggested to write the a disputed paragraph as alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. Can I ask why you have added the extra and, at times, the [Sri Lanka Army]. It sounds like that they target the media personnel the least. Is there a specific reason to this ? Why not get rid of that part and have it say pro-government militias, the LTTE and, the Sri Lanka Army, ..... Watchdogb 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. No probs. Thanks Taprobanus 12:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, someone had made an incorrect hyperlink, and I didn't realise.
All is sorted now -- smadge1 04:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the barnstar! It's my third in as many days, and lovely to see so many kind people around here. Anyway glad to hear I made you laugh; CfD can be a sometimes be a tedious combination of dryness and pedantry (and I'm as guilty as anyone on both counts), and I'm glad I brightened it a bit.
BTW, I don't know if you have ever heard of the wonderful Sctotish-born Australian singer-songwriter Eric Bogle. I reckon that his song The Traditional Folksinger's Lament for the Passing of the Three-Chord Traditional Folksong has to be a strong candidate for the funniest-song-ever. There is a truly brilliant live recording of it on one of his albums. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I created a page called Phantom crystal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_crystal Would you mind editing it? Thank you! Neptunekh 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to think of some way of getting some more participation--It was suggested on the enWP mailing list a while back that all the XfDs except image and article ought to be combined. I understand why they were separated, but maybe they were fragmented too far. Any other ideas? I don';t want to work in opposition, & my DelRev post just now was intended just as a way of getting some more attention to the qy. It may have read as hostile, and if so I apologize. DGG ( talk) 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I just found the actual post, and it was someone else altogether- [4] and replies at [5]--I do not see it in my archive due to some unknown mixup. My apologies for the implication, & I will fix the discussion at DRV. (and a little more comment on my talk page now) DGG ( talk) 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a bit of a backlog on WP:DOT. While I could certainly delete the templates myself, I sort of see it as a conflict of interest to mark and then subsequently these templates. If you have a minute, could you nuke these, please? Cheers. -- MZMcBride 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the debate - I've been away for a long while. Thanks for the invitation. -- LtlKty talk | contribs 05:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your comment at User talk:AMbot/requests that you intend to nominate the 'Wikipedians by location' categories soon, for renaming from "... in ..." to "... from ...". What's your reasoning behind such a move? Most of the affiliated userboxes express a 'current residence' affiliation, suggesting that "in" is more accurate. Also, your comments at that page (and in various UCFD nominations) suggest that you support deletion of categories whose only purpose is identification; yet, as I see it, "from" categories seem to be more about self-identification than "in" categories since they give information about place of origin, irrespective of current residence, and are thus comparable to the ethnicity/nationality categories. I would appreciate any clarification. Thanks, Black Falcon ( Talk) 01:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This should be put up for speedy deletion. 99.230.228.58 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have somewhat weakened the wording of the notice at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Header. Although I can see the value of removing "point"-y comments, I'm concerned that it will end up causing more trouble than it's worth, in that it can spark off-topic discussion regarding the sincerity of expressed opinions. In the absence of any incivility or personal attacks, I think it may be better to allow such comments to remain; if a comment is clearly point-y, the closing admin will likely choose to simply ignore it. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
I was thinking of something like:
The change is a small one (just the addition of "userboxes" after "userpages"), but I don't think a big change is needed. After all, userboxes generally appear in the user categories which they populate. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 02:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You are invited to join fellow admins here in hope of resolving Sri Lanka issues: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Sri_Lanka-LTTE_blocks_-_reviewed. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I speedied it and then got called away to do something. When I returned, you had completed the "paperwork". Thanx.
-- Richard 18:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw you nominated Category:Suspected terrorists alleged to be associated with Tablighi Jamaat for deletion?
Can I ask you for some advice about the care and feeing of categories?
Cheers! Geo Swan 04:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi an Admin User:Blnguyen claims that this article is Unsourced, MOS violations and the like. also sourced POV in any case. At the T:DYK [ [6]]. However, fails to claim what is unsourced and what MOS are violated and what the pov source is. You see, this admin is someone who I have had dispute before. Can you please take a look at the article and comment on what the problem is. I am going to ask this particular admin what the problem is. I am still looking for another opinion on this article. I believe he is talking about UTHR as the POV source. Can you please comment Watchdogb 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I created an article called fruit quartz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_quartz Would you mind editing it? Thanks! Neptunekh 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"revert: there is a speedy deletion notification bot" Source?
"so there's a good chance that notifications will be sent:" What does this mean, "there's a good chance?" You mean that there's a bot, but sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't? If so, what percentage of the time does it work?
"also, this doesn't seem like something that needs to be noted in the policy page)": Where else should it be noted? Note this is not merely the policy page, but the entirely of documentation on the speedy deletion process; the term "Wikipedia: Speedy Deletion" redirects to the page. Geoffrey.landis 04:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I have closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25#Category:Cavite_Actors_and_Actresses as "no consensus", which seems to be the best label to describe the fact that participants in the debate agreed that any such decision should not be made for only one such sub-category, and that the broader question of sub0national categories of actors should be considered via a group nomination. I will leave it to participants to consider whether they want to pursue such a a nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing controversal, but might help you with your work later American Ceylon Mission. Take a look. Thanks Taprobanus 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Modla has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
—Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC).
Hello BF, I've noticed that you make a point of posting notices of CFDs on their creators' talk pages -- and first I want to say that I, for one, really appreciate the fact that you do that. I too make a point of notifying the creator when I nominate a category for CFD; in fact, I also usually check the creator's talk page whenever I get involved in a CFD that somebody else started, to be sure that the creator has been notified. Which is how I've noticed that you're one of the few editors who care enough to do so. You appear to be using a standardized phrasing in your notices; is there a template for this, or do you just copy & paste your own choice of phrasing?
While I'm on the subject, can you enlighten me as to why it's not mandatory to notify category creators about CFDs, whereas such notification is required for AFDs? This makes no sense to me, and I have long felt that the CFD rules on this issue should be changed. Not incidentally, I just took a fellow editor to task for failing to notify me that he had nominated two categories that I created, which I was startled to come upon as I skimmed the list for October 31. Needless to say, I was rather irritated. It's unpleasant enough to have a category you created nominated for deletion, but to be denied the courtesy of being notified on your talk page is really insufferable.
More importantly, I think it is very important for category creators to be invited to take part in the CFD discussions whenever possible. It's more respectful, it's more democratic, and the discussion usually benefits from their participation. Even if it's one of those outrageously stupid or insipid categories, at least they get a bit of a "wakeup call" and may (hopefully) learn not to create similar categories in the future.
Regards, Cgingold 11:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
;)
–
Black Falcon (
Talk)
21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC):P
... I think your change in the wording is a good one ... an
explicit invitation is certainly more ... well, inviting. Also, the revised wording extends an invitation (there's that word again) rather than actually requesting participation ("please participate"). I also think you're right about the symbol: there's no need to use what looks to be a warning triangle in what is intended to be a friendly notice. I've replaced it with
Image:Info non-talk.png, but please feel free to use another image if you think it fits better (I don't know much about the selection of notification images at our disposal). Or, we could just remove the image altogether...To where do you think the various "interest" user categories that are currently located in Category:Wikipedians by philosophy should be relocated? The transhumanism category would seem to belong in Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy, but it's less clear whether the surrealism category does. The Bayesian methods category seems to fit in Category:Wikipedians interested in mathematics, but it could also be considered a philosophical interest. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BlackFalcon , you have removed the BBC article on the ground its doesnt blame the LTTE for Gandhis assasination
Please have a look at the following para from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4835142.stm and tell me whats ambiguous about that
"It later emerged that a female Tamil Tiger (LTTE) suicide bomber had assassinated Rajiv Gandhi. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutugemunu ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Does deleting a category automagically remove all the categories from the articles in that category, or does that have to be done manually. If manually, can you let me know before you actually delete the cat and I will remove the tags using AWB, but I need to have the category in place to make a list of articles for AWB to edit. Regards— G716 < T· C> 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I was part of the debate about deletion of Category:ISI highly cited. There seem to be quite a few categories been deleted using the rational that they are not defining characteristics. I am baffled by this. Surely categories are mainly an easy way to make a list by editing something in the article, so reducing the maintenance problem. Is ther esome big policy shift in Wikipedia? Can you explain what is going on please? Billlion 09:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Medical schools in California. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Amerique dialectics 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that, it came off a bit snarkier than I intended. Otto4711 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that deletion of the category above, I did intend to add further non-hospital pages to the category but then soon realised the fact that the title was too restrictive and it was most likely that the category wouldn't eventually consist of pages that weren't hospitals. Regards, Rudget 18:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Black Falcon. I would like to thank you for your wonderful job at Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War and nice clean up work. I know you have already commented on the above article on it's talk page but can you please keep an eye on here and comment when you have time. I have added your earlier comment but it would be helpful if you kept your eyes on the situation. Watchdogb 07:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Good call at this CFD section. From my comment there:
I did a dictionary search on google:
(n) dirty war (an offensive conducted by secret police or the military of a regime against revolutionary and terrorist insurgents and marked by the use of kidnapping and torture and murder with civilians often being the victims) "thousands of people disappeared and were killed during Argentina's dirty war in the late 1970s"
I had not thought of using lower and upper-case to distinguish between dirty wars and the Dirty War. Plus the plural "dirty wars" allows an overall category to be created. It is one of those modern terms like "ethnic cleansing" that has entered the vocabulary. See:
I'd say leave it the way you closed it. There was a lot of discussion here and there are a few more sub categories to be nominated yet. The Category:Disambiguation (ships) may be a solution yet but not right now. Some of the ones I did not nominate would not easily fit any of the forms that were previously discussed. This may well wind up being one of those changes that editors need to see the fallout from before reaching a final consensus. Vegaswikian 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think I could do a manual upmerge here? You said in closing that "categorisation of school massacres by country allows such categories to be placed into the appropriate subcategory of Category:Massacres by country" - surely the way to do this is to put the appropriate tag in Category:Massacres by country on the article - assuming there are more massacres in the country in question than there are school massacres. Anyway, I want to try one more time to get a structure everyone is happy with. If you agree I could do a manual upmerge, does the category need removing from the bot holding pen? And should the further discussion take place at CfD or at the category talk page? I find that discussion at category talk pages gets wiped out by later renames that don't bother to preserve the talk pages when categories are being tweaked for slightly different names. There should be a more relaxed place to discuss category structure rather than the poll-driven atmosphere of CfD. The talk pages would be ideal, but the loss of discussion instead of them being moved is a real problem. Any thoughts? Carcharoth 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
BlackFalcon, where should that CfD be recorded? Which category talk pages should the discussion be mentioned on? Carcharoth 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Category:School massacres in North America and Category:School massacres oustide North America were upmerged to Category:School massacres.
You're right that it's going off-topic, so I'll respond here. I definitely do not mean to imply that something sinister is going on. As I've said before, you are quite consistent in your deletion rationale and I do not think you have any objective beyond that of being a deletionist. (That is not meant as an insult but rather my interpretation of your Wikiphilosophy, and if you take it that way, I apologize.) That said, I believe you'll find several comments on previous UCFD discussions where "theoretical" collaboration was insufficient without actual collaboration taking place. I gave 10 reasons for collaboration on the Wikipedian Brights discussion which no one challenged, and yet that was closed in favor of delete despite there being twice as many editors supporting the keep position. It was neither the strength of the arguments nor the number of supporters that carried the delete. Clearly, the deletion process for user categories is currently askew. Again, this is not meant as a criticism of you personally. Ben Hocking ( talk| contribs) 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you make of Category:3VCSD Project Helper? On the one hand, it seems to be a project/collaboration category. On the other, the project exists only in the creator's userspace (see User:Compwhizii/3VCSD) and its scope extends to no more than 5 articles. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have closed the CfD with a delete judgement... thanks. I noticed that there is a subcategory called Category:Prince Hall Freemasons (it has only a few entries)... can we speedy delete that as being part of the deleted category ... or do I need to go through another CFD nomination. -- Blueboar ( talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As a CFD regular, have you any thoughts on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not_a_structured_database? (Note: I am sending this message to a few editors who I notice are experienced particpants). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. You did all that merging really smoothly, even updating the portal page here. Thanks for that! I'm impressed. Do you have a little checklist of things to do when tidying up something like that? Carcharoth ( talk) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this category was deleted by consensus, and then recreated: [7] There's probably some speedy tag to delete this, but I don't know what it is. Since you closed the discussion, you may want to look into it. dissolve talk 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon! I created a page called Anthemoessa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh ( talk) 06:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
yure horrible and prejudished and yu r the worst roag adminn ever just you wait ill tell Jumbo Whales abowt you and ill have you boiled alive by arbcom for the way you close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 13#Category:William_Butler_Yeats ACCORDING TO YOUR OAN STRANGE OPINION
.
.
Sorry, I can't keep this up, even in jest :)
I wasn't entirely sure whether my arguments there were particularly solid, or evem to what extent I was playing Devils advocate, but it seemed to be a case worth making. Your closure was, as usual, thoroughly reasonable and very well-explained, and I think the fundamental point is that there really would need to be quite exceptional reason to keep such a category, and that exception was definitely not proven. Another piece of good work!
Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you'd like done with this. (So I thought I'd drop you a note : ) - jc37 06:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Also was wondering as to how to determine when this has been "completed". - jc37 07:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Your precedent page for user categories rules. Just thought you'd like to know.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:)
–
Black Falcon (
Talk)
03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Please see talk page for more information. - jc37 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The XfD Barnstar | |
User:Jc37 and I think you should have one of these. Remember, the delete key is a weapon which we use only when no other... well, all the time, actually. - Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) |
Black Falcon you have done an AMAZING job fixing Vankalai massacre article up. Furthermore, your comment on many of the heated SLR problems are very well appreciated. Your neutral work is what is needed to keep the SLC related editors sane. Thanks very much Watchdogb ( talk) 02:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for not even talking to me about this, or not even making a single message on WT:CFD. -- Ned Scott 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since Mozambique's case is not unique (we agree on that), precisely the more reason to consider allowing "Natives of" categories. And what about the fact that exceptions are allowed? Even more so when the exceptions are not so rare, as both you and I agree? SamEV 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
<- The issue with Heinz is that she was born and raised in Portuguese East Africa. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, maybe we ought to consider this matter closed. What do you think? SamEV ( talk) 17:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Every single edit you have made to the entry for SMS.ac looks like an ad. Yet otherwise you seem to be a nice wikipedian? How odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwho ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! A discussion about what's the appropriate title for Manila Peninsula mutiny is ongoing. However, without reaching a consensus, User:Of moved the page to Philippine coup attempt of 2007. Because of my depression I mistakenly reverted the title via copy/paste to Manila Peninsula mutiny. An error on the page's talk history occured. I humbly ask for assistance to revert back the title Philippine coup attempt of 2007 to Manila Peninsula mutiny along with its talk history. Thanks so much! †Bloodpack† 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Black Falcon, do you mind looking into the article Sri Lanka. User snowolfd4 seems to have a problem with version I had originally written and seems to be cherry picking his sources. He has continous reverted to his version without any discussion in the last month or so. In particular he is claiming Sri Lanka underwant continous economic progress, when its a widely known fact that the economy went into a recession in 2001. Also he is claiming Sri Lanka is a stable democracy, when ranking from the Economist 57/80 democracies and the Failed State Index (where Sri Lanka ranks 25th) hardly makes the term stable plausible let alone fact. Thanks Sinhala freedom 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You closed the CFD for Category:Opponents of Alaska statehood and Category:Proponents of Alaska statehood as "listify and then delete both". At WP:CFD/W/M, you have listed two separate lists, one for opponents and one for proponents. Given that the lists will contain relatively little content at the start, and that the "opponents" category contains only six members, do you think a combined List of opponents and proponents of Alaska statehood would be more viable? My concern is to avoid a situation whereby one or both of the lists are deleted shortly after listification. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 17:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like serial mass tagging without any attempt at discussion in this article, can you kindly take a look at it please. Thanks Taprobanus 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Please tell how the following paragraph related to the article? All I can see,this is a pure attempt to deceive wikipedian readers with giving an impression that the this was done as a retaliation to an earlier attack on the forces.No problem having it as a source and but not the following sentence atg the top of the article .The killings took place two days after the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) launched a suicide assault on a naval convoy in which 18 sailors died.... Iwazaki 会話。討論 08:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you participated in the recent CfD of the category "Homophobia" [1]. It has been re-nominated for deletion, on the same grounds as before, and I was making sure you had an opportunity to present your interpretation of policy on this matter. The discussion can be found here. Best. -- Cheeser1 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. I had to hunt around for that award, but it seemed the most appropriate! -- Beloved Freak 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this article. I think this is what you were looking at when you wrote that Sri Lanka is amongst the worst place for media. [2] Watchdogb 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a question. You suggested to write the a disputed paragraph as alleges that pro-government militias, the LTTE and, at times, the Sri Lanka Army, target media organizations and workers that they consider to be sympathetic to an opposing point of view. Can I ask why you have added the extra and, at times, the [Sri Lanka Army]. It sounds like that they target the media personnel the least. Is there a specific reason to this ? Why not get rid of that part and have it say pro-government militias, the LTTE and, the Sri Lanka Army, ..... Watchdogb 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. No probs. Thanks Taprobanus 12:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, someone had made an incorrect hyperlink, and I didn't realise.
All is sorted now -- smadge1 04:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the barnstar! It's my third in as many days, and lovely to see so many kind people around here. Anyway glad to hear I made you laugh; CfD can be a sometimes be a tedious combination of dryness and pedantry (and I'm as guilty as anyone on both counts), and I'm glad I brightened it a bit.
BTW, I don't know if you have ever heard of the wonderful Sctotish-born Australian singer-songwriter Eric Bogle. I reckon that his song The Traditional Folksinger's Lament for the Passing of the Three-Chord Traditional Folksong has to be a strong candidate for the funniest-song-ever. There is a truly brilliant live recording of it on one of his albums. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I created a page called Phantom crystal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_crystal Would you mind editing it? Thank you! Neptunekh 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to think of some way of getting some more participation--It was suggested on the enWP mailing list a while back that all the XfDs except image and article ought to be combined. I understand why they were separated, but maybe they were fragmented too far. Any other ideas? I don';t want to work in opposition, & my DelRev post just now was intended just as a way of getting some more attention to the qy. It may have read as hostile, and if so I apologize. DGG ( talk) 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I just found the actual post, and it was someone else altogether- [4] and replies at [5]--I do not see it in my archive due to some unknown mixup. My apologies for the implication, & I will fix the discussion at DRV. (and a little more comment on my talk page now) DGG ( talk) 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a bit of a backlog on WP:DOT. While I could certainly delete the templates myself, I sort of see it as a conflict of interest to mark and then subsequently these templates. If you have a minute, could you nuke these, please? Cheers. -- MZMcBride 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the debate - I've been away for a long while. Thanks for the invitation. -- LtlKty talk | contribs 05:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your comment at User talk:AMbot/requests that you intend to nominate the 'Wikipedians by location' categories soon, for renaming from "... in ..." to "... from ...". What's your reasoning behind such a move? Most of the affiliated userboxes express a 'current residence' affiliation, suggesting that "in" is more accurate. Also, your comments at that page (and in various UCFD nominations) suggest that you support deletion of categories whose only purpose is identification; yet, as I see it, "from" categories seem to be more about self-identification than "in" categories since they give information about place of origin, irrespective of current residence, and are thus comparable to the ethnicity/nationality categories. I would appreciate any clarification. Thanks, Black Falcon ( Talk) 01:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This should be put up for speedy deletion. 99.230.228.58 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have somewhat weakened the wording of the notice at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Header. Although I can see the value of removing "point"-y comments, I'm concerned that it will end up causing more trouble than it's worth, in that it can spark off-topic discussion regarding the sincerity of expressed opinions. In the absence of any incivility or personal attacks, I think it may be better to allow such comments to remain; if a comment is clearly point-y, the closing admin will likely choose to simply ignore it. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
I was thinking of something like:
The change is a small one (just the addition of "userboxes" after "userpages"), but I don't think a big change is needed. After all, userboxes generally appear in the user categories which they populate. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 02:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You are invited to join fellow admins here in hope of resolving Sri Lanka issues: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Sri_Lanka-LTTE_blocks_-_reviewed. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I speedied it and then got called away to do something. When I returned, you had completed the "paperwork". Thanx.
-- Richard 18:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw you nominated Category:Suspected terrorists alleged to be associated with Tablighi Jamaat for deletion?
Can I ask you for some advice about the care and feeing of categories?
Cheers! Geo Swan 04:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi an Admin User:Blnguyen claims that this article is Unsourced, MOS violations and the like. also sourced POV in any case. At the T:DYK [ [6]]. However, fails to claim what is unsourced and what MOS are violated and what the pov source is. You see, this admin is someone who I have had dispute before. Can you please take a look at the article and comment on what the problem is. I am going to ask this particular admin what the problem is. I am still looking for another opinion on this article. I believe he is talking about UTHR as the POV source. Can you please comment Watchdogb 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I created an article called fruit quartz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_quartz Would you mind editing it? Thanks! Neptunekh 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"revert: there is a speedy deletion notification bot" Source?
"so there's a good chance that notifications will be sent:" What does this mean, "there's a good chance?" You mean that there's a bot, but sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't? If so, what percentage of the time does it work?
"also, this doesn't seem like something that needs to be noted in the policy page)": Where else should it be noted? Note this is not merely the policy page, but the entirely of documentation on the speedy deletion process; the term "Wikipedia: Speedy Deletion" redirects to the page. Geoffrey.landis 04:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I have closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25#Category:Cavite_Actors_and_Actresses as "no consensus", which seems to be the best label to describe the fact that participants in the debate agreed that any such decision should not be made for only one such sub-category, and that the broader question of sub0national categories of actors should be considered via a group nomination. I will leave it to participants to consider whether they want to pursue such a a nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing controversal, but might help you with your work later American Ceylon Mission. Take a look. Thanks Taprobanus 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Modla has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
—Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC).
Hello BF, I've noticed that you make a point of posting notices of CFDs on their creators' talk pages -- and first I want to say that I, for one, really appreciate the fact that you do that. I too make a point of notifying the creator when I nominate a category for CFD; in fact, I also usually check the creator's talk page whenever I get involved in a CFD that somebody else started, to be sure that the creator has been notified. Which is how I've noticed that you're one of the few editors who care enough to do so. You appear to be using a standardized phrasing in your notices; is there a template for this, or do you just copy & paste your own choice of phrasing?
While I'm on the subject, can you enlighten me as to why it's not mandatory to notify category creators about CFDs, whereas such notification is required for AFDs? This makes no sense to me, and I have long felt that the CFD rules on this issue should be changed. Not incidentally, I just took a fellow editor to task for failing to notify me that he had nominated two categories that I created, which I was startled to come upon as I skimmed the list for October 31. Needless to say, I was rather irritated. It's unpleasant enough to have a category you created nominated for deletion, but to be denied the courtesy of being notified on your talk page is really insufferable.
More importantly, I think it is very important for category creators to be invited to take part in the CFD discussions whenever possible. It's more respectful, it's more democratic, and the discussion usually benefits from their participation. Even if it's one of those outrageously stupid or insipid categories, at least they get a bit of a "wakeup call" and may (hopefully) learn not to create similar categories in the future.
Regards, Cgingold 11:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
;)
–
Black Falcon (
Talk)
21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC):P
... I think your change in the wording is a good one ... an
explicit invitation is certainly more ... well, inviting. Also, the revised wording extends an invitation (there's that word again) rather than actually requesting participation ("please participate"). I also think you're right about the symbol: there's no need to use what looks to be a warning triangle in what is intended to be a friendly notice. I've replaced it with
Image:Info non-talk.png, but please feel free to use another image if you think it fits better (I don't know much about the selection of notification images at our disposal). Or, we could just remove the image altogether...To where do you think the various "interest" user categories that are currently located in Category:Wikipedians by philosophy should be relocated? The transhumanism category would seem to belong in Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy, but it's less clear whether the surrealism category does. The Bayesian methods category seems to fit in Category:Wikipedians interested in mathematics, but it could also be considered a philosophical interest. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BlackFalcon , you have removed the BBC article on the ground its doesnt blame the LTTE for Gandhis assasination
Please have a look at the following para from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4835142.stm and tell me whats ambiguous about that
"It later emerged that a female Tamil Tiger (LTTE) suicide bomber had assassinated Rajiv Gandhi. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutugemunu ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Does deleting a category automagically remove all the categories from the articles in that category, or does that have to be done manually. If manually, can you let me know before you actually delete the cat and I will remove the tags using AWB, but I need to have the category in place to make a list of articles for AWB to edit. Regards— G716 < T· C> 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I was part of the debate about deletion of Category:ISI highly cited. There seem to be quite a few categories been deleted using the rational that they are not defining characteristics. I am baffled by this. Surely categories are mainly an easy way to make a list by editing something in the article, so reducing the maintenance problem. Is ther esome big policy shift in Wikipedia? Can you explain what is going on please? Billlion 09:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Medical schools in California. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Amerique dialectics 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that, it came off a bit snarkier than I intended. Otto4711 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that deletion of the category above, I did intend to add further non-hospital pages to the category but then soon realised the fact that the title was too restrictive and it was most likely that the category wouldn't eventually consist of pages that weren't hospitals. Regards, Rudget 18:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Black Falcon. I would like to thank you for your wonderful job at Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War and nice clean up work. I know you have already commented on the above article on it's talk page but can you please keep an eye on here and comment when you have time. I have added your earlier comment but it would be helpful if you kept your eyes on the situation. Watchdogb 07:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Good call at this CFD section. From my comment there:
I did a dictionary search on google:
(n) dirty war (an offensive conducted by secret police or the military of a regime against revolutionary and terrorist insurgents and marked by the use of kidnapping and torture and murder with civilians often being the victims) "thousands of people disappeared and were killed during Argentina's dirty war in the late 1970s"
I had not thought of using lower and upper-case to distinguish between dirty wars and the Dirty War. Plus the plural "dirty wars" allows an overall category to be created. It is one of those modern terms like "ethnic cleansing" that has entered the vocabulary. See:
I'd say leave it the way you closed it. There was a lot of discussion here and there are a few more sub categories to be nominated yet. The Category:Disambiguation (ships) may be a solution yet but not right now. Some of the ones I did not nominate would not easily fit any of the forms that were previously discussed. This may well wind up being one of those changes that editors need to see the fallout from before reaching a final consensus. Vegaswikian 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think I could do a manual upmerge here? You said in closing that "categorisation of school massacres by country allows such categories to be placed into the appropriate subcategory of Category:Massacres by country" - surely the way to do this is to put the appropriate tag in Category:Massacres by country on the article - assuming there are more massacres in the country in question than there are school massacres. Anyway, I want to try one more time to get a structure everyone is happy with. If you agree I could do a manual upmerge, does the category need removing from the bot holding pen? And should the further discussion take place at CfD or at the category talk page? I find that discussion at category talk pages gets wiped out by later renames that don't bother to preserve the talk pages when categories are being tweaked for slightly different names. There should be a more relaxed place to discuss category structure rather than the poll-driven atmosphere of CfD. The talk pages would be ideal, but the loss of discussion instead of them being moved is a real problem. Any thoughts? Carcharoth 10:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
BlackFalcon, where should that CfD be recorded? Which category talk pages should the discussion be mentioned on? Carcharoth 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Category:School massacres in North America and Category:School massacres oustide North America were upmerged to Category:School massacres.
You're right that it's going off-topic, so I'll respond here. I definitely do not mean to imply that something sinister is going on. As I've said before, you are quite consistent in your deletion rationale and I do not think you have any objective beyond that of being a deletionist. (That is not meant as an insult but rather my interpretation of your Wikiphilosophy, and if you take it that way, I apologize.) That said, I believe you'll find several comments on previous UCFD discussions where "theoretical" collaboration was insufficient without actual collaboration taking place. I gave 10 reasons for collaboration on the Wikipedian Brights discussion which no one challenged, and yet that was closed in favor of delete despite there being twice as many editors supporting the keep position. It was neither the strength of the arguments nor the number of supporters that carried the delete. Clearly, the deletion process for user categories is currently askew. Again, this is not meant as a criticism of you personally. Ben Hocking ( talk| contribs) 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you make of Category:3VCSD Project Helper? On the one hand, it seems to be a project/collaboration category. On the other, the project exists only in the creator's userspace (see User:Compwhizii/3VCSD) and its scope extends to no more than 5 articles. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have closed the CfD with a delete judgement... thanks. I noticed that there is a subcategory called Category:Prince Hall Freemasons (it has only a few entries)... can we speedy delete that as being part of the deleted category ... or do I need to go through another CFD nomination. -- Blueboar ( talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As a CFD regular, have you any thoughts on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not_a_structured_database? (Note: I am sending this message to a few editors who I notice are experienced particpants). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. You did all that merging really smoothly, even updating the portal page here. Thanks for that! I'm impressed. Do you have a little checklist of things to do when tidying up something like that? Carcharoth ( talk) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this category was deleted by consensus, and then recreated: [7] There's probably some speedy tag to delete this, but I don't know what it is. Since you closed the discussion, you may want to look into it. dissolve talk 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon! I created a page called Anthemoessa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh ( talk) 06:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
yure horrible and prejudished and yu r the worst roag adminn ever just you wait ill tell Jumbo Whales abowt you and ill have you boiled alive by arbcom for the way you close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 13#Category:William_Butler_Yeats ACCORDING TO YOUR OAN STRANGE OPINION
.
.
Sorry, I can't keep this up, even in jest :)
I wasn't entirely sure whether my arguments there were particularly solid, or evem to what extent I was playing Devils advocate, but it seemed to be a case worth making. Your closure was, as usual, thoroughly reasonable and very well-explained, and I think the fundamental point is that there really would need to be quite exceptional reason to keep such a category, and that exception was definitely not proven. Another piece of good work!
Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you'd like done with this. (So I thought I'd drop you a note : ) - jc37 06:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Also was wondering as to how to determine when this has been "completed". - jc37 07:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Your precedent page for user categories rules. Just thought you'd like to know.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:)
–
Black Falcon (
Talk)
03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Please see talk page for more information. - jc37 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The XfD Barnstar | |
User:Jc37 and I think you should have one of these. Remember, the delete key is a weapon which we use only when no other... well, all the time, actually. - Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) |
Black Falcon you have done an AMAZING job fixing Vankalai massacre article up. Furthermore, your comment on many of the heated SLR problems are very well appreciated. Your neutral work is what is needed to keep the SLC related editors sane. Thanks very much Watchdogb ( talk) 02:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for not even talking to me about this, or not even making a single message on WT:CFD. -- Ned Scott 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since Mozambique's case is not unique (we agree on that), precisely the more reason to consider allowing "Natives of" categories. And what about the fact that exceptions are allowed? Even more so when the exceptions are not so rare, as both you and I agree? SamEV 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
<- The issue with Heinz is that she was born and raised in Portuguese East Africa. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, maybe we ought to consider this matter closed. What do you think? SamEV ( talk) 17:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Every single edit you have made to the entry for SMS.ac looks like an ad. Yet otherwise you seem to be a nice wikipedian? How odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwho ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! A discussion about what's the appropriate title for Manila Peninsula mutiny is ongoing. However, without reaching a consensus, User:Of moved the page to Philippine coup attempt of 2007. Because of my depression I mistakenly reverted the title via copy/paste to Manila Peninsula mutiny. An error on the page's talk history occured. I humbly ask for assistance to revert back the title Philippine coup attempt of 2007 to Manila Peninsula mutiny along with its talk history. Thanks so much! †Bloodpack† 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)