User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Talkback

Hello, Black Falcon. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 23.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages

Hello, Black Falcon. You have new messages at DrilBot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:DrilBot#Moving location of lifetime template (link). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

It has been suggested at Talk:Rorschach test#The discussion that I may have miscategorized you when I placed your name (see #30) under Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review#Editors who disagreed with the suppression of the image. You may wish to comment. Best regards, –xeno^talk 06:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I have commented at the article's talk page (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother, but can you review and perhaps comment at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum#BF. Have I accurately characterized your position and are you OK with where I placed you in the review? As I understand it, you wouldn't disagree with placing the image elsewhere other than the lead if there was a compelling editorial reason to do so. That is, if you were convinced there is a better image for the lead... this is the sort of editorial situation you mean, yes? Otherwise, you agree that the inkblot (rather than Hermann's picture) should be in the lead at the present time, absent a more editorially sound alternative? –xeno^talk 05:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No bother at all. Yes, I am OK with where you placed me in the review, and your understanding of my position is basically correct, with one minor exception: I would not insist that the inkblot be kept in the lead unless there is an equivalent or better replacement image. I do, however, think that images should: (1) serve to improve readers' understanding of the topic in the most effective way possible; and (2) illustrate the text of the sections in which they are placed. An image of the inkblot in the lead performs both functions, so an argument to move it somewhere else should show that the image could perform both functions even better at the other location. I have posted a more detailed comment at the link you provided. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

user talk:BlackFalcon

I've recently redirected the above to here. The user never edited, but was welcomed in 2005. It may be a good idea to usurp the account. If you decide not to & don't want the redirect, G6 seems appropriate. –xeno^talk 01:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea! Given how easy it would be to confuse the two user names, it's a perfect candidate for a doppelgänger account. I will go ahead and posted a usurpation request for the account. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Notability progress

I plan to replace this with

Articles with topics of unclear notability

All articles

57,919

which still needs a minor tweak. It's not as pretty but it's self updating. I noticed that you updated the graph yesterday, so let me know if this is somethign you plan on doing regularly, and we can go with the graph instead.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Does the progress box update information at set intervals or is it up-to-the-minute? The most time-consuming element of updating the graph manually was opening each of the 20–25 categories to see the count of pages contained in them. Since that information is now readily visible ({{progress box}} could transcluded on the template's talk page), it would be easy for me to update the graph... shall we say, two to four times per week. I am fine with whatever the members of WikiProject Notability want, since they are the ones who seem to get the most use out of the template (I'm a member, but not very active of late). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is up to the minute, within the limits of the various caches. There is a purge (refresh) button too. Like many others I looked at making the timeline update, the nearest I can get is a page which you cut and paste into the actual {{Notability progress}} page. And even then it's a bar chart rather than a proper timeline - making it a timeline would probably be "to many expensive parser functions". But, by all means, float whatever combination of the above to the WikiProject. Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Notability#Template:Notability progress. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• ^ I know you've clarified several times already, but I sent it to everyone for the sake of transparency. –xeno^talk 15:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I have commented here. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Salutations

Just thought I'd say hi, and see how you were doing : ) - jc37 17:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not too bad. I'm just trying to get back into the flow of things ... again. :P

How are you? By the way, have you checked your e-mail? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too : ). - jc37 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Barbara Matera

On June 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barbara Matera, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Antonello Grimaldi

On June 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antonello Grimaldi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

RantMedia to stay in Wikipedia

As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author), I respectfully request your attendance to the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia. I believe there have been MANY productive responses to concerns on past AfD's, but some still don't seem to agree. If there is any way you can think of improving the article, or contributing to the current AfD, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "

Template:Catdesc

You merely commented at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_6#Template:Catdesc. Certain others are now implying (it seems to me) that you meant to keep it. Could you please clarify at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 18#Template:Catdesc.
-- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was, at the time of the TfD, and still am undecided about the template. My comment was not intended to advance any position regarding the template's deletion.

I am very much intrigued by the idea of having a template to standardize category descriptions, but I must admit that the structure of {{catdesc}} makes me hesitate. What attracts me to the template is the degree of precision it affords, but that same characteristic makes me think that editors unfamiliar with categorization guidelines could become confused by it and introduce errors into category descriptions.

If I can sort through my thoughts on the matter in the next few days, I will comment at the review; in the meantime, if anyone has implied that my comment was equivalent to a "keep", please feel free to correct them or point it out to me so that I may do so. Thank you, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK congratulations!

		The 50 DYK Medal
		I extend this unfortunately belated congratulations on passing the 50 DYK mark. In the past year, I have seen many of your DYK articles, covering people, places, boats and even trees around the world, including Australia, Europe, the Western Hemisphere and, most notably, Africa. We have an embarrassing gap of articles regarding the African continent, and the excellent articles you have created covering Liberia and Mozambique have been vital additions to fill a very big hole that exists in our encyclopedia. Thanks for all of your contributions, and I look forward to more of your articles helping you reach the rapidly approaching 100 mark. Congratulations on this well-earned award. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me

Original thread at User talk:Nived 90#User:Nived 90/User boxes (diff)

Thanks Black Falcon for your quick response. And yes it’s not my user box page that is up for deletion but rather this page "User:Nived 90/Templates/Userboxe /longhair4men". And it’s for a user box I created so it’s not such a big deal as if it had been my whole user box page. Thanks. --Devin Murphy (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Nived 90#User:Nived 90/User boxes (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre

Hi Black Falcon! I made A new small page called Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre about a musuem in Canada. Could you edit the page please? Here the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamish_Lil%27wat_Cultural_Centre THANKS! Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Another editor, Andyjsmith (talk · contribs), has redirected the page to Whistler, British Columbia. I noticed, however, that the text of the article matched this website almost verbatim... Please remember that while external websites can be used as sources of information, they should not be used as sources of sentences (see Wikipedia:Non-free content). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Response

Original thread at User talk:The New Squeaky#Fictional entities subpages (diff).

They are in fact works of my own. I was using my userspace to co-ordinate some ideas of mine while they developed (SimCity projects, Video game modifications, etc.) as well as grounds to learn better wiki-ing techniques without harming any pages. However, I no longer use the pages anyways, so I would not mind if they were deleted. Thank you, however, for contacting me first. Jacob S. ^grafitti 13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:The New Squeaky#Fictional entities subpages (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation Panther's Claw

Original thread at User talk:Sertmann#Operation Panther's Claw (diff).

Guess our soldiers are unsong heroes, since you are right - there is not much mention of them in the international press. Managed to find a paragraph mentioning it in the telegraph - which was pretty much the only english language source I could find. Also added the original source of the news, The Army Operational Command, unfortunantely it's in Danish only, but there is a robot translated version here if you are interested. English version - Sertmann (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Sertmann#Operation Panther's Claw (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ITN for July 2009 Mindanao bombings

On 8 July, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article July 2009 Mindanao bombings, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

More Than Weird

Hi Black Flacon! I wrote a page about a young adult novel called more than weird. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_than_weird Could you edit it please? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I added categories and stub tags to the article and moved it to More Than Weird (see Talk:More Than Weird#Page title capitalization for the reason). The "Storyline" section needs a bit of copy editing, but that's probably best done by someone who has read the book. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Accurate list... go ahead

That list is completely accurate. The page 'WWIII' was intended to be a video game design, and the pages on Grand Theft Auto intended to be a modification. I've since ditched plans of drafting those. As for User:The New Squeaky/userboxes/bnt, it does look like gibberish, but it is actually to denote fluency in a digital encoding language, so that can stay. If you would do the kindness of putting a CSD on all of my little "thought output" pages (if you don't want to, that's fine with me, I have Twinkle, so it's easy for me to do) that would be nice.

As you may have noticed, I had a comment written on my page signifying that I didn't want people just barging into my business, but that was in no way directed to you. Thank you for actually contacting me about this, telling me what the errors of it are, et cetera before taking action.

Jacob S. ^grafitti 04:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the subpages on the list, as well as the now-ineffective redirects to them. Per your comments above, I also deleted the GTA pages. If at any time you find yourself wanting the content of any of these pages, just let me know and I'd be happy to restore them for you. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Panther's Claw

On July 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Panther's Claw, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rupert Thorneloe

On July 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rupert Thorneloe, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Format All XfDs as “one nomination per page"

Hi Black Falcon,

I have made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#resolve_the_issue_on_the_XfD_discussion_talk_page, to format All XfDs as “one nomination per page", to assist watchlisting discussion, and to enable followup discussions on dedicated talks pages.

I note this suggestion is completely the opposite to your recent suggestion [1]. I thought I should say that I do actually like you, and am not doing this just to irritate you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sinhalese People page edit war

Two users keep deleting entire passages in the Genetic Studies section claiming that my sources are not verifiable. My sources are the most detailed of the entire genetic studies section and they are studies conducted by the University of Stanford. Need your help to stop the vandalism and edit war. Edwards Scholar (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Congolese Pre-History

Hi, there was a news article about the Democratic Republic of the Congo so I went to Wikipedia to read up about it. Under the above heading there is a section titled, "Congolese pre-history'. It appears to be a paraphrasing (and I use that term loosely) of the main article of said title. It has BP for Before Present used throughout the several paragraphs. I have read many archealogical articles and they never use that terminology that I have seen. It is confusing, especially the way they have used it. Please change to either BCE/CE or AD/BC. Also, there is a phrase, 'supposedly Bantu-speaking' in the article that I think is not very professional and possibly incorrect. Hopefully, you will be interested in editing this section. Thanks. Warren —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.140.90.100 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the part that I thought was incorrect was using the word 'supposedly'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.140.90.100 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Before Present is apparently an archeological timescale equivalent to "before 1950". While I agree with you that BCE/CE would be preferable to BP, I am hesitant to change the text of the section because I do not know which source was used to write the section and, therefore, cannot check the source to make sure that any changes I do make will be accurate. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Redirects from other capitalizations

You may be interested in these recent edits related to a question you raised in May regarding the Natural Selection redirect in WP:MIXEDCAPS. Cheers. -- Thinking of England (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

$ per square foot conversion

I need a template for converting $/square foot to $/square meter. Can {{convert}} be adapted for such a purpose? I need such a template at Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) and I doubt this is the only place it could be useful on wikipedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that you've already found a resolution at Template talk:Convert#$ per square foot conversion. :) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeat offender

Hello Falcon, I saw in Recent Changes you were on patrol and wondered if you cared to swoop down on the (recent) history of User:69.208.137.177--back to vandalizing Cincinnati, fresh off a block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-blocked without additional warnings and block duration increased to 72 hours since it's clearly the same person: the same IP address vandalizing the same article in the same manner on multiple occasions, all within the span of a week. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw your block, thanks! Maybe that person just doesn't like spaghetti with chili. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

S/he seems to operate on a 72-hour cycle (19:56 on 18 August, 21:26 on 21 August, 20:28 on 24 August), which could signify a spaghetti and chili dinner every three days ... maybe it's a restaurant special. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, or some gastro-intestinal cycle! BTW, you know what I'm talking about, right? Skyline Chili? I once composed a very disgusting limerick on that topic at a conference in Cincinnati. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know, but I do now. Who'd a thunk it? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Charisma Carpenter

Thanks for fixing my screwup with the pictures. I could have sworn I checked for duplication, but if I checked, I certainly did a wretched job of it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :) Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rfd2

Original thread at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Template:Rfd2 (diff).

I wondered about this, but some redirects will be nominated the day they are created. I also thought of going back if the day is less than 15. What do you think of those two points? Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

Replied at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Template:Rfd2 (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Patriots of Latvia

Hi, Black Falcon! Thanks for Your explanation, but as I`m not a native speaker of english, I didnt understand 100% of Your answer. Can You please help me to fix this problem (as I said before, I created this category together with this user`s template and in Latvian Wikipedia it works without any problems - template and category)? With best regards --Riharcc (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Riharcc#Re: Category talk:Patriots of Latvia (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! You want to say, that categories such as Category:Wikipedian Real Madrid fans, Category:Wikipedians who like Family Guy and probably hundreds others which starts with "Category:Wikipedians ..." have the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, and not just describing users? I dont belive it. And why did You mentioned Category:Wikipedians in Latvia? I didnt say anything about this category, but I said about category in Latvian Wikipedia lv:Kategorija:Lietotāji, kuri ir Latvijas patrioti (Users, who are patriots of Latvia). Maybe "Category:Wikipedians who are patriots of Latvia" may be solution of the problem? --Riharcc (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Riharcc#Re: Category talk:Patriots of Latvia (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I still dont understand, why all other categories, which start with "Wikipedians....." (so, as I understand from You, are illegal, too) my stay, but this You want to delete.... Anyway, I dont realy care this category so much as template in my userpage. If You are going to delete this category, the template stays without any category and this may became a new problem, so - do You have any idea for the name of the category of this template? In my opinion, its not right to say, that something is bad, but not to say, how is correct. Waiting for Your recommendation - --Riharcc (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Riharcc#Re: Category talk:Patriots of Latvia (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Your forbearing explanations and my template fix. Please, don't hesitate to delete Category:Patriots of Latvia anymore.--Riharcc (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Riharcc#Re: Category talk:Patriots of Latvia (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I'm not sure if this nominator is objecting to the original closure (made by you) or the subsequent speedy deletions (made by me), but I figure you should be notified of this DRV. VegaDark (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I've added my thoughts at the review. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A instead of B

If a policy says "usually you should use A instead of B" then don't use B, ok? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm replying on the talk page. Please give me a few moments to complete my response. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Proof reading More Than Weird

Hi Black Falcon! I was wondering if you could proofread the article I wrote about the novel called More Than Weird. Here's than link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_than_Weird. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Category dashes

Did you have an end-game in mind for the discussion on dashes in categories? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Good Olfactory#Re: Category dashes (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Western films

There is some disagreement with the naming of Category:Western (genre) films at the community talk page for WikiProject Films. The discussion is here; could you please weigh in with your thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Erik#Re: Western films (diff). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistani cinema

Since you already commented in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Small Pakistan wikiprojects, you might want to comment also here. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Kirby Wii (tenative title)

Would you object to deletion of Kirby Wii (tenative title), which you created in February 2008 and which currently redirects to Kirby? I understand why you created it—at the time, the main article was located at Kirby (tentative title)—but it no longer seems to be necessary (and not a likely search term due to the portion in parentheses), especially in light of the existence of other redirects like Kirby Wii and Kirby (Wii). Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't stay up to date on Kirby games anymore; are people pretty sure there won't be a Kirby Wii game? Or does it have a title already? Blindman shady 15:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, after reading this article from 2007, I was under the impression that the game had already been released. However, looking closer at the information in Kirby (video game), it appears that there have been conflicting statements about whether the game will be developed and released. My apologies for the confusion... I should have looked more closely at the article. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorising fiction

• Wikipedia:Categorising fiction

User:Hiding asked that I "spread it around". And since I've found you fairly good at helping with such things (and since others watchlist your talk page lol), I thought I'd drop a note here. - jc37 00:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the link. I've a few thoughts regarding some of the questions Hiding poses, and I may post some comments on the talk page. The topic is worth discussing, even if it's just on the talk page of what's currently an essay.

By the way, it's good to see you around again; I resumed editing just a few days ago, so I'm (again) still in the process of catching up. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he started the page, and I've edited some as well. Obviously feel free to jump in and edit as well : )

And me too : ) - jc37 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It occurred to me that probably no one has informed you about the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:User categories, a page which you created (if I'm not mistaken, you just moved the text from WP:UBX (an existing guideline), which had just become much too long). As much as I wish that someone would raise a single objection to the content of the guideline so that we could discuss it, it seems that the main focus is on the guideline's heritage. I don't know if you have any desire to comment there, but maybe you'd like to at least keep an eye on the discussion. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 09:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN for 2009 Hotel Shamo bombing

On 4 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 Hotel Shamo bombing, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

Nice work - Dumelow (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Catullo

Hello, I've left a message for you under "Daniel Catullo" talk page. When I leave a note there does the admin editor automatically get a notice of it? Thanks so much. StewartNetAddict (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not automatically, but he or she should check the talk page before taking any action with the article. I will add a comment at the article's talk page in a few moments. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ITN for 8 December 2009 Baghdad bombings

On 8 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 8 December 2009 Baghdad bombings, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Communist parties in the Former Soviet Union

Please reviev: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_16#Amended_suggestion. - Altenmann >t 18:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I have commented at the discussion and expressed my support for renaming. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archinving

Thank you for correcting my talk page archiving. It now archives my talk correctly. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

UBX

Can you link to the consensus that you mention? CTJF83 chat 21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tresiden/god. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, CTJF83 chat 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 04:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

No problems. Gigs (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied...

In response to your comments at my talk page, i commented at the BOTREQ page here. Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

Was that you relisting your own nominations in this edit, or were you just completing the procedure for PhantomSteve? Debresser (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just completing the procedure for PhantomSteve (as here). At this point, I would not object to a 'no consensus' close; of course, I also have no objection to keeping the discussion open... –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I gathered that much. On both accounts. :) Debresser (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, see User_talk:Phantomsteve#Relisting_discussions. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In order to keep the discussion together, I have replied at Phantomsteve's talk page. Thank you, though, for leaving me a note. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Do your thing

[2] Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done - I replaced all transclusions of the template with Template:Cleanup (and, in a few cases, more specific templates such as {{external links}} and {{citation style}}) and removed the template from any project-related pages such as Wikipedia:Template messages/cleanup and Template:Template messages. The job queue is quite long at the moment, so it may take some time for the number of incoming links to diminish, but it will. I will check the incoming links to the template again in about 12 hours to be sure that I did not miss any links that need to be removed or replaced. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The deletion debate was already closed by the time I saw this. I think that in a lot of cases it is a bad idea to replace with Template:Cleanup. It is likely that its purpose will not be understood and it will get moved to the top of the article where that template is supposed to be inserted. The connection to the sections it is referencing will then be lost. A better replacement would be Template:Cleanup-section on the offending sections. This is more work and will involve making judgements - but it is necessary IMO if you are going to insist on deleting this template. SpinningSpark 13:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On most of the ~80 articles that transcluded the template, I did move {{cleanup}} to the top of the article per the instructions in its documentation page. Of course, I did try to use a less generic template where possible (e.g. here). I considered using {{cleanup-section}} at first, but in almost all cases there were multiple sections to which the tag could apply, so one could just as well use {{cleanup}}. I even noticed a number of articles where cleanup-remainder was transcluded just after the article lede ([3]) or infobox.

I have no problem carrying out any extra work, but how would you suggest treating the cases I mentioned (i.e., where the cleanup tag applies to most of the article or multiple sections within an article)? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be putting {{cleanup}} in the middle of an article. If the whole article needs cleanup, then fine, put it at the top, but it most likely doesn't, otherwise the original tagger would have used it themselves. Better is to put {{cleanup-section}} in all sections to which the original tag was referring. SpinningSpark 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I only did this on the first few articles, so I can easily correct that (in fact, I'll do that now).

In most of the 80 articles that transcluded {{cleanup-remainder}}, the tag applied to the majority of the article's content. The tag was being used to indicate where a cleanup effort had stopped, but too often it was applied to articles where cleanup had taken place on only the article lede or on the first one or two sections of a long article. In such cases, it seems unnecessary to use {{cleanup-section}}, since the tag would have to appear in virtually every section of the article.

I'll make another pass through the articles to see whether there are any that could be changed to {{cleanup-section}} or another more specific tag, but I don't expect there to be too many. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was only looking at the one article (Electrical telegraph) that showed up in my watchlist. I have no idea whether the rest of what you did was appropriate or not. Anyway, well done for taking on the work of the cleanup rather than just deleting the template and leaving a mess as some would have done. SpinningSpark 19:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I finished my pass through the articles and modified another 10–15, adding {{cleanup-section}}, consolidating cleanup tags, or removing {{cleanup}} (in just one or two or cases) as seemed appropriate. Thanks for bringing my attention to this, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Reconciliation WikiProject

Please see an important notice at WT:SLR#Should we close down this project? — Sebastian 08:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave Elitch DrV

Hello, I think you lost me somewhere in there. Did the article, at the time, claim that he was in the band? If so, I'm unclear about your !vote as that would be a claim of importance and thus (I would think) make it an invalid A7 per your comments. As I read A7 the claim merely needs to be there to not allow an A7, not proof. I'm happy to change my !vote it the claim wasn't there. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The article did claim that Elitch was in the band, but in the very next sentence indicated that he was not yet a member of the band. The first sentence claimed that Elitch "is currently" (present tense) a member of The Mars Volta, but the second sentence indicated that he "will replace" (future tense) Pridgen on the European leg of their tour (i.e. he has not yet replaced Pridgen).

I agree with your interpretation of A7, but with the caveat that the assertion of significance needs to be credible. Although "Elitch is a member of The Mars Volta" by itself is a credible claim, it's no longer so when the next sentence of the article contradicts it.

My endorsement of the deletion was based not on the absence of reliable sources confirming Elitch's membership in the band, but rather on the article's failure to offer a clear or consistent assertion of significance. I hope this helps to clarify my reasoning. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Humm, I'd say A7 doesn't apply just because the article is self-contradictory about the claim of notability, especially over something so minor as tense. Otherwise we might be deleting some pretty notable things due to sloppy editing. But I do understand where you are coming from. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

York Flight Training

I just noticed my post on York Flight Training has been deleted. I am the owner of York Flight Training LLC which is the only flight school in York PA. We are operated out of York Airport KTHV and I felt this article would be a good way for locals to learn how to fly in York. Granted the post was a duplicate of http://answersforpilots.com/blog/571/york-flight-training but I wrote this article and I posted it on answersforpilots.com as a featured writer. The site is managed by a former student of mine so it seemed suitable to have an article about my flight school on his site. Please let me know what I must do to have the article come back... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killurpig (talk • contribs) 05:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. The article was tagged for deletion and I deleted it because it heavily promoted the flight school ("competitive rates", "unparalleled emphasis on service", "safe and enriching learning environment", "they have the experience to do things right", and so on). In order for this particular article to pass Wikipedia's standards inclusion, it should satify the following criteria:

1. It should provide an indication of how the flight school is significant or important;
2. It should not violate copyright (essentially, it should not use copyrighted content without attribution and should not copy significant portions of copyrighted text directly);
3. Its content should be descriptive and its tone neutral, not promotional; and
4. Its content should be sourced to reliable sources in order to demonstrate the school's notability.

However, as the owner of the flight school, it is recommended (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) that you avoid creating an article about the school and instead do one of the following:

1. Create a working space on a subpage of your user page, such as User:Killurpig/York Flight Training, write an improved article that meets the criteria above (this guide for writing an article could be useful to you), and then ask a third party (such as myself or someone else in Category:Wikipedia administrators) to review the article to make sure that it is ready to be moved to the article namespace;
2. Wait for someone to create an article - if the school meets notability standards, someone will create the article eventually; or
3. Identify and link to reliable sources that provide significant coverage of York Flight Training and ask someone to create a draft article (I would be willing if the sources are there...), which is a more proactive approach but still avoids a direct conflict of interest while editing.

You also have the option of requesting a review of the deletion, but at the review you will most likely be asked to present sources. I conduted a quick search for sources (see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and could not find an indication that York Flight Training has received significant coverage in reliable sources. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tápiószele

OK, but I don't really understand why it is necessary to discuss its deletion. Tápiószele is a Hungarian town, without an article, and the only town in this country that is redirected to the county it is situated in. If someone see the blue link of it, can think it is already written, but it isn't. So a red link would be better, IMHO. --Perfectmiss (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a good argument for deleting the redirect, and I basically agree with your position, but discussion is necessary because the speedy deletion criteria apply only to specific situations, of which this is not one. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see. So I nominated it on the recommended page. On the huwiki, I came from, these kind of deletions are much more easier to reuqest... Thanks for your help! --Perfectmiss (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It probably should be easier here too, but it has proven quite difficult in the past to expand the deletion criteria. You're welcome. Cheers! –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

See comment in edit summary, please do feel free to re-remove your comment and I will amend my !vote to make sense. –xeno^talk 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed my comment only so that I could read through the AN/I thread before suggesting an outcome, but my comment really was nothing more than a statement (i.e., not a !vote), so no problem. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: The order of the illuminati

Original thread: User talk:Hottieitalian11#The order of the illuminati

Well, gee, what do you think I'm trying to achieve... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottieitalian11 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Hottieitalian11#The order of the illuminati (diff). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

See this thread. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, –Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops

Thanks for that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) –Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding more information on Alexandra_Powers article

Hi! I would like to add to the Alexandra_Powers article because I think she grew up in manhanttan because I read on on a website about 5 years ago. Should I add that? Thank you!Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to confirm it, then certainly it would be appropriate to mention it. However, if you can't recall the source or find another one, then it should not be included. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the attribution

Thanks for the attribution, which was very kind of you ... but really, it wasn't stolen, it was recycled.

Anyway, good work on the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks. Your cogent deletion rationale for the 'ice hockey players by century' categories was what prompted me to look more closely at Category:Sportspeople by century. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proof reading More Than Weird

Hi Black Falcon! I was wondering if you could proofread the article I wrote about the novel called More Than Weird. Here's than link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_than_Weird. Thanks!

Neptunekh2 (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:association football hatnote

Original thread: User talk:WFCforLife#Category description

No problem. I've added it to the second level categories (categories located in Category:Association football) as well. WFCforLife (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page (diff). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep the conversation at my talk page. WFCforLife (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've added some categories to the nomination, relating to positions. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've confirmed my opinion at the CfD. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

DRV log

Heh, thanks for fixing the DRV bottom template. Apparently I had a mind lapse and subconsciously wrote the other word. (X! · talk)  · @278  ·  05:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) –Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Black Falcon. You have new messages at WT:Redirect.
Message added 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks! Airplaneman ^talk 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this most difficult close. It is always pleasing to see an admin closure that obviously considered all of the considerations and their appropriate weight. My thoughts and concerns over the actual issue are crystal clear in the MFD; quite honestly I have no doubt that there will not be (nor can there be) any improvement to the article (most especially improvement that can overcome the deficiencies noted in the original AFD). What do you think is a reasonable amount of time to allow to pass before an additional nomination might be appropriate? Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! As I indicated in the close (in the sentence about the "quantity of policy- or guideline-based !votes"), those arguing to delete tended to offer arguments that were more grounded in established policy and guideline, so I felt that it was necessary to explain why I thought there was no consensus. Also, a few of the comments seemed to reject WP:UP#COPIES altogether, and I wanted to address them as well. (By the way, I just noticed and corrected an error in my closing rationale.)

I think that a future nomination should take into account the extent of improvement (if any) that takes place. In the absence of substantial improvement, and given the history of the content (deleted at AfD, restored, its validity questioned at MfD, and barely kept through a "no consensus" close), I think that waiting approximately two or three months would be enough. That added time would bring us into April or May, meaning that Tothwolf would have had ~5–6 months since the article was userfied to make improvements. If the page still is unchanged or in essentially the same state by June (more than 6 months since userfication), I would favor deleting on the basis of the original (30 January 2010) MfD discussion (a form of "delayed deletion", if you will), since much of the valid opposition to deletion in the MfD focused on the fact that the article had been userfied only two months.

I hope this helps. (By the way, I assumed you meant to write "I have no doubt that there will not be ... any improvement to the article." (emphasis added)) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It does, and thanks for the advice. Yes, I did mean "will not be" (now corrected above). Have a great weekend! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and same to you! Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Black Falcon,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My bolded vote in response to the VOTE 2 question as it was originally worded was "100%". With the added clarification that "'none' means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop", I can clarify my vote in the following manner: I do not believe that there is any need for an auto-desyop percentage (i.e., "none"), regardless of whether it exists as a strict threshold or a "rule of thumb"; if forced to select an auto-desysop percentage as my second preference, I would select "100%". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You've made so many sensible contributions to article space and Wikipedia discussions, as well as your numerous level-headed administrative actions, that this seems the best description of you. With appreciation, BencherliteTalk 18:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Prompted, if you'd like to know, by this well-reasoned and patient explanation. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 18:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate your kind words. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Winifred Horan

On March 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Winifred Horan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for that barnstar! You really brightened my day! (I've said more on it at my talk.) I, in turn, want to thank you. During the discussion there, you have become one of the most helpful contributors in bringing together users from different sides of the argument, and helping us to find areas of agreement on which we can build. All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You deserve it, and I'm glad! And thank you for your kind words (and more at your talk). :) Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

In the block of text here on the CDA RfC, I was wondering if there was a source or basis in a specific historical document, or if you were just making a particularly astute observation...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The text itself I made up on the spot, but the comparison comes from having studied the dynamics of various nationalist, ethnic, and sectarian conflicts. It does not come from one source specifically, but the structure of argument underlying the rhetoric could be observed during many conflicts: Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and many others. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Homer Simpson's jobs

Hello, Black Falcon. You have new messages at Thryduulf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thryduulf (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Thryduulf#List of Homer Simpson's jobs (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Black Falcon. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyright_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China.
Message added 05:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry for the late response. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:NativeForeigner#Re: User talk:Black Falcon#Talkback (diff) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:BLP help

Sorry, I hadn't meant to ignore you. Somehow I missed your response last week.

Someone made a prototype for different placement. I think it will address your concerns. You can see it tested at the bottom of this page. Maurreen (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think you were. :)

And you're right, that type of notice—visible while reading the article but not part of the article itself—does address my concerns. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nie Fengzhi

On March 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nie Fengzhi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of help pages

I've made a stab at answering your query about the help categories at Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project#Categorization_of_help_pages, we don't have an awful lot of traffic so any ideas you have on the help cats is welcome .... --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look at reply at the project talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Seventh Coin

Hi Black Falcon! It's neptunekh2! Would you mind editing an article I wrote about an independent film call The_Seventh_Coin Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure! I've made a few edits to the article and added the New York Times review that was quoted in the article (per the Verifiability policy: "an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations"). I can't do much about the plot summary since I haven't seen the film, but the article looks to be off to a good start. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit on 1977 Moscow bombings

Hi. I am writing regarding your removal of 'History of Armenia' in the article about the 1977 Moscow bombings. I agree with you that Armenia has a rich history on par with any Mediterranean country, and this incident is just a sentence in a thick book. Thats besides the point. Armenia was part of the USSR in 1977 and supposedly 3 very brave Armenians decided to fight back against the Soviet Empire's repressions and domination of their country through bombing their oppressor's capital city's prized metro (yet who knows what KGB could have invented or who they framed or what is true). I think it is something worthy to add to the history of the Armenian people, and not something to be ashamed about. I will not revert you. I am just giving you some food for thought. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation of why the article was in Category:History of Armenia, but I considered only the relevance of the event to the topic of the history of Armenia. The bombing took place in Moscow, in the Russian SFSR, and so is definitely a part of the history of Moscow and of the Russian SFSR. However, the article makes no mention of any impact on the Armenian SSR or the Armenian people, and the fact that the attack was perpetrated by Armenians doesn't really make it a part of the history of Armenia any more than the 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup d'état attempt. As you say, Armenia has a very long and rich history, and this event is just one sentence in a very thick book.

Whether the event is "worthy to add to the history of the Armenian people" or "something to be ashamed about" (to be honest, I don't think that the actions of a few people should be generalized, either in a positive or negative light, to an entire nation) is ultimately a subjective evaluation; different people will have different opinions about it, and so it cannot serve as a stable and neutral basis for categorization.

Again, thank you for your note. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I will just say this for my own peace of mind since the bombings yesterday in Moscow. What was done in 1977 was done against a totalitarian Soviet state with a proven record of swallowing countries and goals of world conquest. The suicide bombings in March 2010 in Moscow subway was committed against a democratic country. I do not equate subway attacks of 1977 and 2010. I am gonna shut up because I feel guilty enough making the above post a few days before this new attack. Meishern (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect-Class Album articles

Dear Black Falcon: Concerning your question at my page about Redirect articles, as far as I know they should not have any project tag or category tag, because those pages by definition are inactive and have been replaced by something else. If you see such a tag on a redirected page it's probably a leftover that still remains from the days when it used to be an active article. This isn't really a big deal but sometimes these articles show up on project lists (e.g. the Wikipedia Albums Project) calling for some sort of special attention. Once in a while a volunteer will go around and remove those outdated tags. If you see them, they're not really very meaningful. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Doomsdayer520#Redirect-Class Album articles (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Reaction

good job. if you ever get involved in a generalized MOS discussion about reactions, please let me know, so that i can chime in. thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. While I was typing a reply to your comment at my talk page, this popped up in my watchlist. I suppose now is as good a time as any. :) Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Willard Kraft from Sabrina The Teenage Witch

Hi Black Falcon! It's Neptunekh! Could do me a favour? I think a character called Willard Kraft from Sabrina the Teenage Witch should be listed under Fictional principals. Here's the links: List of characters in Sabrina the Teenage Witch (TV series)#Mr. Willard Kraft (1997–2000) and Category:Fictional principals. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Since it is not possible to categorize sections of pages, but only whole pages, I created Willard Kraft as a redirect to the section and categorized the redirect. It now appears in Category:Fictional principals under the letter 'K'. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

User:IBen/TB mono 19:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 22#Category:Drilling and threading

Hi, I saw your note about splitting category:Drilling and threading, and I can help you out. Explicitly, what do you need to know? Wizard191 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you just take a look at the contents of the two new categories to see whether I placed any article into the wrong category, or whether any article belongs in both categories? Also, I am unsure about how to categorize Tap wrench, List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths and Tap and die (I placed it in Category:Threading (manufacturing), but it seems to be related to hole making as well). Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I recat'ed the three you listed above. I'll take a look at the other articles after this, but I'm sure they are alright. Thanks for the help! Wizard191 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Hi Black Falcon! It's Neptunekh2! There's a couple of things I Need to talk to you about; first of all do you think it is suitable to place the Barrack Obama under the category People of Kenyan descent? I mean, he is of Kenyan descent and he is a very powerful person. 2. Could you please add some infoboxs on my userpage User:Neptunekh2? I like one saying I'm Canadian, and that I'm of English descent, and I'm into LGBT issues and that I have Aspergers. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article Barack Obama is already in Category:American people of Kenyan descent, which is a subcategory of Category:People of Kenyan descent.

As for the second issue: sure, I'd be happy to. But do you mean an infobox, like {{Infobox user}}, or userboxes like {{User Canadian}}? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Allentown, Pennsylvania

We have an IP user who is constantly putting spam on this page. Can something be done to inhibit it's activities.. please ? Thank you :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There is not enough activity at this time to justify semi-protection, but I will watch the page for at least a few days. For now, I added notices (Template:Uw-unsor1) to the user talk pages of both IPs as I saw that they hadn't been contacted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia:Books

I have just closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 30#Category:Wikipedia:Books as rename both, created the target categories, and requested for a bot to move the pages over. The next step is your promised followup CfR discussion for the sub-categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll start drafting the nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 7#Wikipedia books. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have used AWB to recategorize the categories in Category:Wikipedia:Books. I think that you probably went replacing the string "[[Category:Wikipedia:Books]]", but igonred any other instances of "[[Category:Wikipedia:Books". This leaves the problem of piped links used for alternate category sort keys - you should also substitute "[[Category:Wikipedia:Books|". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, AWB preserves sort keys unless the option to "remove sort keys" is specified. See, for example, [4]. That being said, I intend to manually review the sort keys for each category once the 7 April renaming nomination is closed. Please tell me if I misunderstood your comment. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sean Connery

Hi Black Falcon! It's Neptunekh2! Again, I need to talk to about quite a few things. First, my user page User:Neptunekh2. The kind of userbox I meant was like {{User Canadian}}. If you could put one on my user page saying that I'm Canadian, and that I'm of English descent, interested in LGBT issues, and I'm have aspergers that would great. Second, this is someone I would like to say about Sean Connery:Connery is not completely retired. Connery has a voice role in new film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1552111/ I think this information should be included in the Sean Connery articles. If you plus add this in I woulds be happy. Thirdly, there is two things I would add to the List of fictional gynoids. ((There are female robots.)) I would like you to put the In literature/comics/theatre that Sailor Saturn: "In the manga, there was a lab accident which killed Hotaru's aka Sailor Saturn mother, Keiko, and critically injured Hotaru. Souichi Tomoe, Hotaru's father, rescued her by making her body cybernetic and making a deal with Master Pharaoh 90." (quoted from Sailor Saturn) Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added to your user page the following userboxes: {{User Canadian}}, {{User English descent}}, {{User Asperger}} and User:UBX/LGBTinterest.

I added a mention of Connery's role in Sir Billi to the article (diff), citing this article from The Scotsman (IMDb generally is not considered a reliable source).

I don't have enough knowledge of the Sailor Moon series to know exactly what to put. If you know about the series, I encourage you to be bold and add the entry yourself.

Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent CFDS discussion

Relating to a recent discussion we had in the speedy section: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_13#Category:Lakes_of_the_Pirin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I will comment at the CfD. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Threat by Israel is Off Topic??

Hello Black Falcon. Thanks a lot for your feedback on my edit. I'd like to know how is the following open threat by Israel to use atomic warheads against countries in Europe & Middle East, is OFF TOPIC? The quotes in my edit are a more than enough to strike terror in the hearts of innocent civilians in the countries within Israel's range which even includes the Vatican. Compared to the other incidents in the heading of "Alleged nuclear terrorism attempts and plans" the Israeli attitude towards using its Nuclear assets is by far the most incredible and a source of terror for all peace loving, civilized nations across the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.76.75 (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response explaining the reasoning behind your edit.

The quotes you inserted do not contain an "open threat by Israel to use atomic warheads". The quote attributed to Dayan contains no mention of nuclear armaments, and it is not clear in what context the statement was made (by the way, Dayan could not have made that statement in 2003, since he died in 1981). The quote attributed to van Creveld does contain a conditional threat involving nuclear weapons, but a statement or threat by an "Israeli military historian" is not the same as a statement or threat by Israel. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving categories

I was wondering how you go about moving a category, once it has gone through the correct channels of course! On article pages there is of course the tab at the top which makes it easy but it doesn't seem to exist on category pages. Do you simply create a new category and then re-direct from the old category page or is there another way? If you could leave the answer on my talk page I'd be very happy. Thanks. Cls14 (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Cls14#Moving categories (diff) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Years Active of Sean Connery's Career

Hi Black Falcon! Hi's Neptunekh! I need to go over a few things with you! 1. I'm wondering what I should put in for the years of Sean Connery being active of his career. It said 1954-2006 but he returned to voice acting so should it say 1954-2010 or 1954-present? 2. I need your help cleaning up an article about an little know actress called Alexandra Powers. I need to put a references in her article. in the article "She is married to fellow Sea Org member Gavin Potter (a Canadian citizen) and both work at the Freewinds (FSSO) liaison office in Los Angeles." I have the link right here that could be used a a reference: http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=24302 Could you please add this in the article? 3. The Seventh Coin article has a quote saying the film "same style as Romancing the Stone and The Jewel of the Nile" I only put that quote there because I read it off of VHS cover ten years ago. Is that a good enough reason to put if there? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For Sean Connery, I suggest indicating "1954–2010" per the instructions at Template:Infobox actor#Parameters. The instructions say to "use 'present' in place of the end year" if the person is still active, but there is some question (see Sean Connery#Retirement) about whether Connery is still active, semi-retired, or retired.

For Alexandra Powers, this source would not work for that statement. Although there are a few mentions of "Alexandra", there does not seem to be any clear indication that the reference is to Alexandra Powers. Second, the source is an online forum and, therefore, is not a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources).

For The Seventh Coin, I don't think that the VHS cover is a good-enough source primarily because the source is not independent of the production company (it is, essentially, promotion). Evaluations of stylistic similarity between creative works are best left to (and should be attributed to) professional, reputable reviewers.

I hope this helps. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)