User talk:Black Falcon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Falcon.

Archives Archive 1 – Archive 2

Contents 1 TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks 2 Citation for Dwight Gustafson 3 Input is appreciated 4 tanzanians 5 List of MP8 mini-games 6 List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) 7 You helped choose Atmosphere as this week's WP:ACID winner 8 Award & adminship 9 Email 10 Campa 11 Bus terminals in Moscow oblast 12 Trevor Loflin 13 Terrorism in Kazakhstan 14 White Cross 15 Pop feminism 16 PRODing of romance authors 17 List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast 18 Hartal 19 Studios Architecture 20 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important homeopaths 21 Naomi Hazan 22 Digital strategy 23 User:Mangojuice/Trivia 24 You helped choose Vladimir Lenin as this week's WP:ACID winner 25 "intellectually independent" 26 WP:N 27 Need your response 28 Preferred method of execution 29 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private First Class Stephan "Obi" Obrieski 30 Again: List of German actors 31 Falcon, I have something! 32 Kya: Dark Lineage 33 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1850-51 Australian cricket season 34 Thanks 35 Afd you voted on 36 re: your RFD nomination on Animal/Cattle Mutilation 37 Strategic management 38 AF1 pop culture 39 Then my question is this 40 Your response required in achieving consensus 41 AFD 42 Sideshow Cinema 43 User talk 44 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heretical (website) 45 your very thoughtful remarks 46 My RfA

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --— Indon (reply) — 15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for Dwight Gustafson

Hi, I'm formatting the book source given in the Dwight Gustafson article with {{cite book}} per User:Uncle G's recommendation in the AfD. Could you please specify whether the page-numbers are for the paper-back or the hardcover edition (the ISBNs of the two are different). Thank you, Black Falcon 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The hardback and paperback are identical except for the binding; but I used the paperback. (Also, the second edition seems to be identical or virtually identical with the first except for additional material.)--John Foxe 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. It's a minor issue, really, but one that adds specificity to the reference and makes the article more easily verifiable. I've already added the extra info, so you may check it if you wish. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. All the best, John Foxe 20:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input is appreciated

Dear editor, since you also commented on this recent AfD, I would appreciate your input here: Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"#Arbitrary cut-off discussion. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tanzanians

Please take your time with the List of Tanzanians article. I'm not in a hurry and not trying to make a point. :) -- Ben 02:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Following extensive research and a series of cost-benefit considerations, the article is confirmed as a a probable liability. After looking at the article and possible ways to expand it (and make it more informative), I really don't know whether it's worth the trouble. The category already does a fairly good job. I will give it a try tomorrow by actually editing the article (so far I've just been looking through candidate articles) and if it's still problematic, I will re-prod. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's what I was thinking... it's a timesink. And the category looks like it could do the job quite nicely. -- Ben 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of MP8 mini-games

See, there's something that really wasn't acknowledged, that the only reason anyone can say "it's not a guide!" is because is can't be a guide. There's no one to guide, and no one can guide them yet, as it's unreleased. But when all of the other MP mini-game lists are about telling how to play them, what is to be expected? There's not been a precedence to put mini-game lists on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that it surviving has more to do with people liking the article more than feeling it adheres to policy and guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I nominated all of the MP minigame lists for deletion on February 28 for that very reason: WP:NOT a game guide. However, I had failed to notice that the previous AfD discussion had closed only 27 hours earlier, so I withdrew my nomination. I intend to wait a month or two (until April, at least, or even May), and the renominate all the articles for deletion. I simply removed the prod because it is not a case of uncontroversial deletion (having already survived AfD once). -- Black Falcon 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of April is the earliest you could be able to do it (or rather, late March). - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)

I've userfied this to a subpage (User:Black Falcon/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)) per your request at the AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Atmosphere as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Atmosphere was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award & adminship

Hi Black Falcon, I first noticed your work in AFD. Excellent work writing articles, saving worthwhile articles, sourcing articles, merging articles, and general insightful contributions. Have an award! I would like to nominate you for adminship! Are you interested? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 12:34Z

Thank you for the award! I have seen your valuable improvements to articles at AFD–most recently Extreme Pizza–and am honored that you would consider nominating me for adminship. I am interested, but am concerned the timing may be off. For personal reasons, I will be spending significantly less time at Wikipedia in the second half of March than I have in the past month (I do plan on a full comeback in April). I would like to become an admin eventually, but do not feel comfortable requesting adminship shortly before taking a Wikibreak. I would be flattered if you would still consider nominating me sometime after my full return. My sincere thanks for your acknowledgement and show of trust. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, if/when you would like a nomination, let me know —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 07:12Z

OK. Thanks again, Black Falcon 07:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

With respect to the list of German actors and some administrative details, I really need you to register an e-mail in your preferences. You can make a yahoo account in less than a few minutes and use it exclusively for wikipedia. You'll understand why I'm asking when you get my first email. Usedup 01:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Two of the best things about Wikipedia, in my opinion, are the anonymity it affords and the existence of records of all actions and statements. I prefer for now to keep all Wikipedia-related communication on Wikipedia and am generally wary of communication that is not freely available to be read by other editors. As regards the list of actors, I intend to investigate whether the information present can be used as the basis for a new "List of German actors" that: (1) is sourced; (2) includes only notable actors; and (3) includes information that cannot be efficiently presented in a category. I think most or all information relevant to that endeavour can be found online or in available print sources. -- Black Falcon 02:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As a possible future admin, I continue to implore you put an e-mail address in your preferences. Everyone else, and definitely every admin, does it, so its questionable why this admin candidate consistently refuses too. There is a save correspondence feature in most e-mail services. Again, it will make much more sense why I'm asking for this the sooner you decide to make the email. Lets say it has more to do with administrative details than anything else. Please reconsider. Usedup 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason behind my reluctance to provide an e-mail address was transparency of communication. Also, please note that I am not yet an admin candidate and would certainly provide an e-mail if/when I sought adminship. However, in following WP:AGF, I have created an account and saved it to my preferences. I hope you were not offended by my initial reluctance to give an e-mail address; I still feel it is best to keep WP-related communication on WP, but if you insist on an account, I will assume you have good reason(s) for doing so. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No of course I wasn't offended. Thank you and I sent you the email. Make sure to reply to it via email (you'll see why). After our discussion you can remove the email address again if you wish. Usedup 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the response. Clearly we don't see eye-to-eye on deletion disputes but we're probably the best at discussing them. Write back soon when you can. Usedup 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campa

I was about to AfD, but seeing your comments I 'll wait another week. Your problem is the several different fields: is it particularly as a sociologist, or as a popular writer or what? If you can focus on one and actually prove it, I'll be glad to support the article. DGG 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. On the one hand, he is an academic. Yet on the other, he is a public activist. And, to complicate matters even more, almost all sources about him are in Italian or Polish. Polish is completely incomprehensible to me, but I have a basic understanding of Romance languages and will try to use some Italian sources to bolster the article. -- Black Falcon 06:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bus terminals in Moscow oblast

All articles were deleted dispite the voting againgt deletion. All images werre deleted as well.--Dojarca 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have brought up the issue with the deleting admin at User talk:Wknight94#List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast and requested that the images be restored. Please let me know or comment there if you feel I have not adequately presented the argument for restoring the images. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Black Falcon 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor Loflin

Hi, I saw you removed the prod notice from the article. I still don't think an article is needed so I put it up for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. -- Black Falcon 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism in Kazakhstan

Hi, You recently participted in an AFD on Terrorism in Kazakhstan. Your input on a proposed page move is desired. Regards, KazakhPol 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Cross

Hi. Thank's for leaving me the message about that. The page, as initially created, contained a link and mention that multiple members of the band went to form the band GWAR. According to wiki guidelines that should qualify them for notability. I've readded that information and removed the header. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 02:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whoops, forgot to say that information had been deleted for some reason at some point. It's, as I mentioned, re included. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop feminism

Hi Black Falcon, this is a bit late but I'd just like to query your contestation of the {{prod}} for Pop feminism. I originally tagged the page as original research because of its complete lack of references. I say this for the simple reason that 5 of the references (numbers 2-6) are not notable or published on reliable sources (the 5th reference is also broken) - the fact that there is 1 newspaper article about pop feminism doesn't mean it deserves its own article. As I have posted on the talk page there are some throw-away references made to pop feminism but I can't say that there is either a definition or clarification of the term in any academic source that I've come across. When the article itself says: "There is no proof pop feminism is an actual feminist philosophy; it seems to be an observed phenomenon in society or the media" it is correct. I am anxious to do something about this article whether expand, merge or delete - its current state is a mess. What are your views on the article?--Cailil 12:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

After a more detailed investigation of the available sources, I found my initial assessment of "following a review of available sources, I believe there is enough material to expand the article" to be incorrect. I don't think that the article can stand on its own. I don't think a merge to feminism is necessary: as you state, the article's "current state is a mess". A simple redirect to feminism would probably be enough. I will do so now, but please revert me if you feel it should remain a while longer or that another outcome would be more appropriate. I will also attempt to incorporate the CBC source into the feminism article; it's a good source for a few sentences, but does not justify a separate article, as you've noted. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PRODing of romance authors

To respond to your concerns:

1) I was suspicious, actually highly suspicious, in the unreferenced/sourced manner in which the articles had been added. The fact that most of them only linked to a list of romance authors also left me less than convinced they were nothing more than SPAM bios.

2) The incorrect edit summary was a mistake. I'd like to say it'll never happen again, but I know thats probably not true.

3) Sadly enough, just adding a tag that an article needed references and more explanation of notability very rarely leads to cleanup in that regard. Something like a third of articles I've sent for an AfD after dealing with defensive article creators removing cleanup tags repeatedly immediately get cleaned up and sourced due to the proceedings. I'm glad that you intend to source the rest of the articles.

As for removing the PROD tags, I checked through my edit history and you and GroggyDice have removed all of them. As you might have guessed, I'm a deletionist, and I think I still view these authors as failing WP:BIO, as they fail to assert their notability through 'secondary sources that are reliable, distinct, and independent of the subject'. But, this isn't my encyclopedia, and life will go on. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. Happy wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 14:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast

FYI, I responded to your request on my talk page. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hartal

The user seems to be more interested in ranting and making vague legal threats than finding reliable sources for his articles. If you think that Roger J. Geronimo is notable, I will not object if you remove the prod tag (although I would greatly appreciate if the sources were standardized since Hartal seems to only use the hard to reach caches for reasons I don't understand). Similar comments apply to the currently under AfD Rochelle Holt. JoshuaZ 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am actually unconvinced whether Roger J. Geronimo meets WP:BIO (my search for additional sources was largely fruitless). I simply de-prodded and re-prodded the article in order to make the author aware of the issue and hopefully prompt him to provide additional sources to establish notability. If such sources are not forthcoming, I am not opposed to the article's deletion. I believe the situation with Rochelle Holt is different as she seems to be notable despite her affiliation with CPU and the poor state of the article (somewhat improved since the AFD).

I really don't know what to make of Hartal's comments on his talk page. His comment about the deletion of articles about notable persons related to CPU (including an Icelandic Minister, a NYT bestselling author, and a former Prime Minister) initially concerned me. However, there is no record of a "John Sigurdsson" or "Barbara De Angelis" article being deleted and the article for Harold Wilson still exists.

In any case, I have commented at the AFD and made some changes to the article. Also, per you request, I have standardised the references in both articles. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see now what Hartal meant -- that the names were removed from the "notable alumni" section of Columbia Pacific University. Well, this was certainly appropriate for Wilson (honorary fellows don't count as alumni as far as I know). Even if the other two do belong in the section, Hartal's way of going about it is not particularly constructive. Rather than delving into legal issues, I would suggest that he take the matter to WP:RFC if he feels there have been inappropriate actions on the part of other editors--although his actions would come under scrutiny too. -- Black Falcon 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Studios Architecture

Thanks for cleaning up Studios Architecture - the prod was mostly because it was a huge WP:COI/WP:AUTO violation. It got me upset because then after that the user changed names which I thought was extremely fishy. I wanted somebody not affiliated to take a look, or let it fall off the map. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.studiosarch.com (the user's initial name) redirects to the company's official website, http://www.studiosarchitecture.com. The name change just 2 days after creating the article is a bit strange, but should not be overly relevant once the article is cleaned up. I will look for sources for the additional claims made by the article and delete those which cannot be sourced. (And also slightly modify some claims: for instance, the renovation of the Pentagon was contracted to STUDIOS Architecture and another company, but the article currently reads as if STUDIOS was the only one to work on the project. Whether this is deliberate or due to the way the information is presented I'm not certain; both are possible, but I'm somewhat inclined toward the latter (mostly because much of the article was well-sourced).) In any case, I will continue to work on the article. Cheers, Black Falcon 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad somebody else is keeping an eye on it... twice today the same blurb, first anonymous. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important homeopaths

Thanks for the note. That title, I think, will work better. Still, I'm not sure it holds up to Wikipedia's standards, but that can change - so I'm going with a "weak keep or merge" vote due to ambiguity (here, I'm focusing also on something like WP:LOCAL, as these people are notable amongst practicioners of homeopathy), but thinking that the article might not stand on its own and be better if it were merged into the Homeopathy article itself - but hedging a bet that it can live on its own. =^^= --Dennisthe2 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Hazan

Hi. The reason I moved the article (aside from the incorrect transliteration - Chazan is the German version of her name) was for consistency. For example, another MK, Yehiel Hazan, has the same name, but spelt differently (starting with an "H") on the Knesset website. There are plenty more examples (Haim vs Chaim etc), but unfortunately people take "official" Israeli translations as read, despite the fact there is no consistency (I believe there are some pages on the website where you can find more than two names spelt in different ways (one I know of which discusses presidents, talks about Chaim Weizmann, Haim Herzog and Ezer Weizman!)), and therefore Google searches to determine the "correct" spelling are effectively meaningless. I hope this is convincing enough not to move it back as I have recently started fixing mis-transliterations of Hebrew words/names (Qiryat -> Kiryat etc.) Number 57 09:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Number 57. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think the Knesset website is inconsistent, you should drive round Petah Tikva (also a mistransliteration - it should be Petakh Tikva). I have seen it spelt at least four different ways on road signs! In Be'er Sheva there are several streets where the street name is spelt differently at each end :S Number 57 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital strategy

Hi. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a second look at the article on Digital Strategy. I've been working on making edits based on guidance from Ronz and he felt it might be worthwhile for someone else to take a look. I've updated all the references (where possible) to link directly to their online sources and included page numbers (again where relevent). In addition, there are two other references which were removed as either COI or violating WP:SOURCE - self published and was wondering on what your take was now that the links have been added to the articles directly. Thanks for any help you can provide! --Zyaar 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments and perspective. I think it will help focus the discussions about the article. Thanks! --Ronz 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Black Falcon. This is great, constructive criticism and definitely gives me a roadmap to follow for any of my contributions to this topic. --Zyaar 13:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mangojuice/Trivia

I updated my essay quite a bit, thought you'd want to take a look. Cheers, Mangojuice^talk 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually did end up merging it with Wikipedia:Trivia. My answer to your point about non-annotated lists -- if the list has a specific heading, no further explanation is likely to be necessary. Imagine, for instance, a section "Pigs as major characters in fiction." I don't think we'd need much in the individual items in terms of annotation. It might be better to have items like "Wilbur in Charlotte's Web" rather than simply "Charlotte's Web", but that's a well-controlled form of limited annotation. But I do agree that a real miscellaneous info section could never be covered well as a plain list. Mangojuice^talk 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. So it's just a matter of specifying a narrow scope for the list. I looked at the talk page discussion here and agree with you that a merge of the two is not yet appropriate (although the two should reference each other). The worst trivia sections and articles are being deleted in AFD or otherwise. However, a number of the better ones that sourced and narrow in scope are being kept or merged. To merge the essay into the guideline would constitute a change in the guideline that may not be supported by consensus. I noted previously that I may support turning it into a guideline, but that was if it gained consensus support. I don't think that has happened yet (though it may be worth starting a discussion on the matter). -- Black Falcon 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Vladimir Lenin as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Vladimir Lenin was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "intellectually independent"

"intellectually independent" as you added it at Bio could be an interesting addition to WP:N. --Kevin Murray 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I added that to WP:BIO based on my discussion with Rossami here. I found the previous wording to be misleading and believe the phrase "intellectually independent" to better convey the intended meaning. It may be worthwhile to discuss its addition to WP:N, but I think that should be deferred until the final state of the guideline is determined (keep, reject, replace with WP:AIC, etc.). I have removed the phrase "and of each other" from WP:N. Again, the phrase is misleading. Moreover, it was a change that was slipped in without consensus support or discussion (at least one that I could find). -- Black Falcon 02:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:N

You edited a criterion in WP:N down to "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject." removing the part about "independent of each other." So consider the case that I want to write about something which happenened say in 1880 through 1900 and the only online source I have for those years is the New York Times. If I find say 12 articles about the subject in that one source, they are independent of the subject but not of each other. Is that the making of an adequately referenced article? This leaves it for others to add references from books or from other publications of the period. Could someone argue legitimately that it should be deleted for lack of multiple references "independent of each other?" They could have before your edit but not after. This is not a hypothetical case, because I have relied on that one source for the reason stated. Edison 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe we should require the type of independence of sources that you noted. I would say that 12 articles on a subject do serve as adequate referencing, even if all 12 are from the NYT. The type of independence you've outlined is essentially related to a "conflict of interest". Judging the independence of sources from each other is a difficult, subjective, and (in my view) unnecessary endeavour. Are two books by separate authors published by the same publisher independent? Are two news outlets who share an individual on their board of directors independent? Are separate ministries/departments of a government independent? We can say with reasonable certainty whether a given source is independent from its subject. We cannot (and in my opinion should not) do the same for the independence of sources from each other. -- Black Falcon 04:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your response

Talk:Assassinations_and_murders_attributed_to_the_LTTE#redirect please respond on this ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 14:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preferred method of execution

The cruelist is generally being left to die of old age, but my preferred method would be for the tribe to leave me out on the ice where I'd gradually just become numb before succumbing! Noroton 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private First Class Stephan "Obi" Obrieski

Hi, the debate closed with a merge result, and you indicated you'd be willing to do the merging of the content. Since you seem to be have been online a few minutes ago, I figured I'd leave a message to you before doing anything else. If you don't feel like doing it right now, I'll remove the afd tags and add in the {{afdmergeto}} templates, but in the meantime, I won't be touching them. The title of the merge target is up to you. Thanks. - Bobet 18:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again: List of German actors

I'd be curious to learn why this page has been "userfied" rather than "projectified" to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. In the second case, at least a minority of Wikipedians—those interested in German film—would be able to work on the list whereas editing a user subpage is seen by most people as an intrusion of privacy. Needless to say, the whole idea of removing the list from the main space based on one or two outsiders' votes is most ridiculous. See also Talk:List of actors from Germany. I don't even know where to put these lines. All the best, <KF>, 18 March 2006

I asked the page to be userfied "until such time as I trim/improve it and suggest its recreation, merge it into List of actors from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, or find an appropriate WikiProject which would take it" (copied from the AFD discussion). I only requested the userfication so that the content would not be deleted entirely. So far, I have not been able to devote time to working on it, so I would be more than happy to see it "projectified". Please let me know the appropriate location and I will move it, or feel free to move it yourself. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have no idea where to put it and I don't know if the people working on the WikiProject Film would want it. As I said, as far as I'm concerned it (a) belongs in the main space and (b) the only overhaul it needs is additional names (if there are any). At a stage in the progress of Wikipedia where every single album of some unknown pop group has its own entry certainly every single German actor and actress deserves one. Personally, I always favour and enjoy the red links because they clearly show at a glance what work there still is to be done. In other words, I would have preferred the list to remain exactly as and where it was. As this is impossible, I really have no idea what to do now. I'll keep an eye on future developments. Thanks again, and best wishes, KF 18 March 2007.

[edit] Falcon, I have something!

Trampton 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Kya: Dark Lineage

Hi, I've merged all of the items from the various lists back into the core article for now. I imagine that once I get it trimmed down and looking more encyclopedic the article won't need to be branched out. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree: there is not that much information to warrant a separate list as this point. I have tried to cleanup one section, "Characters", but don't know how successful I was, largely because I don't know which elements are significant to the game and which are not. Feel free to revert my edits. Also, I didn't know what to do with the images, so I placed them in a gallery. Let me know what you think of the format for that section or if you can suggest an alternate format, and I'll try to help with the cleanup. Thanks, Black Falcon 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at the Kya article, the more I feel it's going to have to be rewritten pretty much from the ground up. While hotspot's enthusiasm is a welcome addition to any wiki, the prose brought along for the ride is not. It's pretty much lacks any means of salvaging which wouldn't be more work than just rewriting it from scratch. I think I'll take a run at doing just that.

Oh, and as you've no doubt noticed, I went ahead and stole the Kya redirect. There's a toplink in the article right now, but I don't imagine it'll be contested. Cheers, Lankybugger 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1850-51 Australian cricket season

A lot of the articles that were deleted have been recreated. I just thought I would point it out to you - Ozzykhan 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I was just rv'ing another step farther back when you did a second before me on Ethnic group Thanks.--Xiahou 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afd you voted on

Just to let you know that an Afd that you previously voted on, Maximilian Roos, was relisted due to some of the contributors sockpuppeting. I have revoted along with my original opinion. Laughhead 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Afd was closed as delete - do you think that was the correct decision? One vote was struck that came from an IP user with >300 edits, another that had many edits but from a while ago. Does the remaining 3-2 demonstrate consensus? I'm not a regular wikipedia user so would be interested to know your opinion.Laughhead 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I should tell you, firstly, that I am not an administrator, but a regular editor. However, I spent quite a bit of time at AFD and so will give you my honest analysis of the discussion and closure.

In terms of numbers, I count 3 deletes and 3 keeps (excluding EbayVP, Cashandhoes, and yourself--no offense--for having too few edits outside the subject). One of the issues raised against the article was that much of its notability rested in the references posted on unibooks (magazine scans). As the scans seem to be unaffiliated with unibooks, I think that their consideration as unreliable was mistaken. However, that is not to say that notability, as defined here, could not have been reasonably contested due to a lack of provided sources that. Perhaps a result of 'no consensus' would have been more appropriate, but then again, 'no consensus' discussions where only a few editors participate are usually left to admin discretion (not per policy as far as I'm aware, but in practice).

If you wish, you may list the discussion at deletion review, specifically bringing up the issue of the scans on unibooks and the mistake of discounting the recommendation of the one IP user with 300+ edits. If you do take it to DRV, you should only address the closing of the discussion and/or bring up new sources of information--DRV should not consist merely of a restatement of arguments in the AFD. Before doing so, however, keep in mind that AFD is not just a head-count (arguments are supposed to matter more) and also that the closure as delete may well have been within the admin's discretion. I don't want to unnecessarily discourage you from pursuing the matter, but I also don't want to unnecessarily encourage you. I hope my comments aid you in making a decision as to how to proceed. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your lengthly reply. I will have a think and may post on DRV. Laughhead 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted it here. Wikipedia:Deletion review Laughhead 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: your RFD nomination on Animal/Cattle Mutilation

Thank you for a well-researched and very thorough nomination. That was excellent work. I wish everyone working the RfD page shared your attention-to-detail. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic management

You've made a recent contribution to the article on strategic management, and I've made a proposal to revert that article to a prior version that existed before vandalism in July 2006. Please see Talk: Strategic management#Once_a_great_article. Please add your comments to that talk page if you're concerned about this. Thank you. --SueHay 03:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AF1 pop culture

Thanks for actually showing an interest in the article, rather than just in deleting the pop-culture "list" page, and thanks for adding the reference. I was the one who left the short summarry in the origianl article when I forked the material off, olong with the VC-25 article. I didn't actually write the summary, just edited it down some. Had I been aware of the stir the simple act of spinning off the notable pop culture list (we really do delete the non-notable items in WP:AIR, contary to the opinions of the supporters of the AFD), I might have reconsidered. I actually thought other parts of Wikipedia abided by the same courtesies we at WP:AIR are expected to follow. How stupid of me. Can you believe I really thought if someone objected to the article, notable listings or not, that they would post a note on the talk page, or at least browse the history to try to contact the editors who created or worked on the list, rather than go straight to the AFD process? And here I thought "Assume Good Faith" applied to everyone! I didn't know people who didn't like so-called cruft lists were exempt from that.

However, you have showed me courtesy, even though you don't support seem to supprot the article, and are making an effort to help the original article. THanks again for showing me not everyone on Wiki is like these guys, that people here can still be courteous to others not in their little circle. - BillCJ 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article survived the AfD - no consensus. Do you have any specifice suggestions for me on where to go from here? I'm not opposed to merging the content back in to the main AF1 article, but I do feel it is too long in its current form. I believe the items there are notable, or at least were considered notable by more than one editor in the past, so I respected that even if I thought the item should not be there personally. If we do leave the itmes where they are, what suggestions do you have for improving it further? Thanks for your time. - BillCJ 13:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I am posting another request on my talk page. Please check there also. Thanks. - BillCJ 14:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Then my question is this

Then why are claims from the Taliban etc not represented? I have already given examples of this. Why the double standard?Pubuman 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no double standard. A "double-standard" requires that editors working on Sri Lanka-related topics also actively work on Afghanistan-related articles. This is not the case. Additionally, I looked at the OEF and War in Afghanistan (2001–present) articles, and they seem to be mostly descriptive (i.e., they contain few "claims" by one side or the other). Where relevant, however, some statements by the Taliban are included (e.g., "the Taliban rejected this ultimatum, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking bin Laden to the September 11 attacks").

The lesser representation of Taliban claims may be due to a number of factors: irrelevance of such claims to the scope of the article, the lack of reliable sources to document such claims, and/or lack of editorial interest in adding and incorporating this information. Whatever the reason, the perceived existence of problems with one group of articles is not a reason to allow the same problem in other articles. When an issue is disputed, Wikipedia policy requires that the claims of all major sides be presented. Statements that do not present controversial claims as fact, but rather appropriately attribute them (e.g., "according to the LTTE") are neutral. -- Black Falcon 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic entity, therefore there should be consistency throughout all its articles. Therefore a double standard does not require the same editors to be working on both articles. That is simply wrong. And further I was talking of all terrorist groups, not just the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. I have no problem with adding both sides of the story so to speak. But what I have a problem with editors using the official LTTE websites, or websites that are clearly of LTTE origin as reliable sources. The Taliban consistently claimed they had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and September 11th attacks, however that has not been stated. Nor are the numbers civillian deaths that were claimed by the Taliban. This is with very good reason. And that reason being there is no independently verifiable stats to support their claims. All there is is the claims made on their official websites etc. The GOSL claims are only published after they have been verified and rightly so. However with the LTTE claims their official website is enough? What difference is their between the official sources of the islamic terrorist groups and the LTTE? It should not matter what either side claims, what should be presented are the verifiable facts, and that isnt happening because a a particular few editors insist on propaganda and biased material. Pubuman 09:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, there should be consistency, but a claim of a "double standard" implies the existence of a deliberate conspiracy by editors to note LTTE claims and withold others, which is false. You write, "The Taliban consistently claimed they had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and September 11th attacks, however that has not been stated." Well, per NPOV, it should be stated. You write, "Nor are the numbers civillian deaths that were claimed by the Taliban". Where relevant, those numbers should be presented as well. They should be presented not as facts but as what they really are: disputed claims. You write, "GOSL claims are only published after they have been verified", but it is well recognised that GOSL frequently overestimates LTTE casualties in battle, just as the LTTE overestimates GOSL casualties.[1] You are right in arguing that "what should be presented are the verifiable facts". Claims by one or another side are not facts; but the existence of such claims is fact. It is a verifiable fact that the Taliban deny any connection with the September 11 attacks. Even though the claims themselves may be false, the existence of such claims is a verifiable fact. Finally, as to your last sentence, I would like to encourage you to assume good faith on the part of editors in the absence of clear evidence to contrary. Those who note LTTE claims are merely adhering to the NPOV policy. -- Black Falcon 16:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's my point exactly, the numbers given by the government aren't presented until they are given by neutral sources (i.e BBC) where as the official LTTE websites are used as sources for the LTTE claims, do you not understand that fundamental difference? Pubuman 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But please understand the other fundamental difference: the numbers given by BBC are presented as fact, whereas the numbers given by LTTE are presented as claims. The LTTE website is reliable as a source for its own claims. A statement like, "The airstrike killed 10 people (BBC). The LTTE claimed the dead were schoolchildren." is perfectly acceptable. So is, "The airstrike killed 10 people (BBC) who, according to the GOSL, were new recruits to the LTTE. The LTTE denied the claim and identified the dead as schoolchildren." Note that the LTTE claim is not presented as fact, nor is the GOSL claim. Both are presented as what they are: claims. The only thing that is presented as fact is: the airstrike killed 10 people. -- Black Falcon 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your requirement for a "double standard" is simply wrong, A double standard is when two different standards are used to judge the validity or quality of something. Your def does not really even make sense. But lets leave that there and discuss the important issue here, and not symantics. But my point is there is no place for such claims on an encylcopedia. Regardless of where it comes from. Why should an encyclopedia present claims? And if the sources used are the LTTE website then that is still unreliable for reporting facts. So is the GOSL websites (just as an example) but it seems to me that this isn't a source that is really used so it's not really relevant.Pubuman 08:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is your point, then your point is counter to one of our most fundamental policies: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. (see WP:NPOV)

Why should an encyclopedia present claims? Because sometimes we can't be sure of the truth! Because claims by different groups are an important aspect of politics! Yes, the LTTE website is not reliable for reporting facts, but I wrote above that it "is reliable as a source for its own claims". Not facts, but claims. If the LTTE website says that the LTTE supports X, then we can take that as reliable. "According to the LTTE, the Sri Lankan government engages in human rights violations." That is a fact. Does the GOSL engage in HR violations? Maybe, maybe not. But it is a fact that the LTTE claims the GOSL does. -- Black Falcon 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, but shouldn't we rely on fact as much as possible? And only use these claims as you say when we arent fully aware of the facts? It is my view that claims are over represtented on these articles, not just by the LTTE, but claims as a whole (i.e. GOSL and LTTE)Pubuman 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Facts are neutral; claims are not. Ideally, we would use only facts and would not have to constantly append sentences with "according to the LTTE/GOSL". Unfortunately, especially when dealing with political conflicts, facts are often hard to come by. In such cases, where there is a dispute over facts, we have to resort to claims. And, in order to remain neutral, we have to present the claims of all major sides. -- Black Falcon 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your response required in achieving consensus

Hi please respond here --> Talk:Assassinations_and_murders_attributed_to_the_LTTE#Consensus_to_redirect ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

"The payer must" isn't game guide material. As you have said, the game guide notions have been removed. "The player must" doesn't tell you how to play the game. It isn't really a problem, is it? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You did a good job writing the introductory paragraph, but aren't the games decided by the colour of space a player lands on? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 08:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, seeing as you did such a good job with the original MP, could you try doing some prose for the other mg lists? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 08:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sideshow Cinema

I don't quite understand what you've done on this article. How have your edits improved it? Can we just get rid of the Index Box at the top of the page? I don't even know if that's possible. Is this your final edit to how the actors are arranged? I will have to repair links to Sideshow Cinema actors from other pages and I don't want to have to do this too many times. Dwain 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done two things. First, I changed all the section headings into subsection headings. These are still linkable (see, for example, Sideshow Cinema#Ruth Shane), so there is no need to repair links on other pages. The only exceptions are Edward Eck and Steven Mullahoo because I changed the (sub)section titles from "Ed Eck" and "Steve Mullahoo", respectively. My second change was to format almost all of the "External links" as references per <ref>Reference</ref>. This also shortened the article without causing any loss of information. It is possible to remove or alter the table of contents. To specify its removal, simply type __NOTOC__ before the first section or subsection heading. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk

Hi, it's Izzy259. The reason I added User talk was because me and Scepia have inserted practical jokes to our user page, and I wanted a better trick hyperlink than Practical joke. So I made that page that only people who fell for the joke would know they were tricked.

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heretical (website)

Thanks - fat finger (or thin brain) trouble. Springnuts 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your very thoughtful remarks

Black Falcon, I just want to pay you a compliment regarding your arguments in and handling of this AFD. I'm probably not going to !vote there because I really don't have a fully formed opinion about it right now. It does seem that at least one person is offended by the very nomination (on second thought I may have misread this user, but still); I hope I can balance that by offering my observation that you've kept everything quite honest and fair. — coelacan — 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

• Thanks for voting in my RfA. I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)