Black Falcon (talk | contribs) →CSD A7 exclusivity: don't understand comment: re to Alvestrand |
Fugitivedread (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 269: | Line 269: | ||
:I apologise for the unclear edit summary. What I meant to say was this: As currently worded ("An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not state ...") the list ''technically'' is exclusive. Though I don't support an expansion of A7 to all articles (as some people on the talk page are pushing for), I also think that A7 can (in limited cases) justifiably be applied to articles''not'' about a person, group, band, club, company, or web content. For instance: an article about an individual animal that doesn't assert significance. Of course, some redundancy for the sake of clarity may be necessary, so perhaps my edit was ill-advised. '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 19:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
:I apologise for the unclear edit summary. What I meant to say was this: As currently worded ("An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not state ...") the list ''technically'' is exclusive. Though I don't support an expansion of A7 to all articles (as some people on the talk page are pushing for), I also think that A7 can (in limited cases) justifiably be applied to articles''not'' about a person, group, band, club, company, or web content. For instance: an article about an individual animal that doesn't assert significance. Of course, some redundancy for the sake of clarity may be necessary, so perhaps my edit was ill-advised. '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 19:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
== RE: RE: Category:Users who support UNlimited Taiwan == |
|||
yeah, go ahead and tag and bag it, lol - [[User:Fugitivedread|Fugitivedread]] 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:41, 4 September 2007
Sock Puppet
rm - I'm not your sock puppet, I've already been falsely accused and blocked for being someone else's sock puppet, I'm still on probation for that (unfairly) and your comments here [1] are just going to get me blocked again. (I'm referring to your original response to Ian Lee's comment - I realise he's edited his comment since - please would you edit yours so its consistent - thanks). Kelpin 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would confuse that as proof of sockpuppetry, especially considering Ian Lee's "Woops" comment. However, I've stricken the comment just in case. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
CfD closure
Hi, the Cat:Gay Wikipedians CfD discussion you recently closed is not noted on Category talk:Gay Wikipedians, and when if use the "cfdend" template it does not link to the archive properly. Is there another template that will work, or is the discussion somehow archived in the wrong place? Thanks TAnthony 15:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. The {{cfdend}} template does not work because it is not suited to UCfD archives (it points automatically to the CfD daily logs). I think the easiest way to record the discussion on the talk page is to simply add a messagebox (based on "cfdend") and manually specify the location, as I've done here. UCfD nominations that result in a keep are often not recorded because it's relatively easy to uncover any previous nominations by looking through the revision history and seeing in what month a category was nominated for deletion. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the fix; I'm obviously not familiar enough with the cfd-related templates to know the proper workaround. And the only reason I care is because this and related categories have been nominated a lot lately (and again today) and I want to preserve previous discussions. TAnthony 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nominated again? I hadn't checked the UCFD page yet, but after looking at it, it seems this nomination is heading toward a "keep" result as well. As for preserving discussions, I can understand your point. It's much easier to simply have a link to previous discussions than to dig through archives to find why a category was kept in the past. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the fix; I'm obviously not familiar enough with the cfd-related templates to know the proper workaround. And the only reason I care is because this and related categories have been nominated a lot lately (and again today) and I want to preserve previous discussions. TAnthony 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
UTHR
UTHR is a very neutral source. I will provide some links for you to decide your self
- [2]
- [3]. Here they are called "Leading righs body"
- [4] Uthr reported abuses by LTTE]
- [5] If anythin UTHR is a anti-LTTE source.
- [6] More people using UTHR.
I think you can make up your mind if this source is RS or not based on this. Thanks Watchdogb 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. I also did a little searching and found various other links (all from reliable sources) that all suggest that the UTHR is a neutral and reliable source.
- PBS Frontline: UTHR "has published scathing reports detailing human-rights abuses in Sri Lanka", including criticism of the LTTE
- BBC: "a prominent Tamil human rights groups accused the Tamil Tigers ..."
- Chronicle of Higher Education: "The University Teachers for Human Rights is the only remaining Tamil Human-Rights group critical of the Tiger leadership."
- International Herald Tribune: "an independent Sri Lankan advocacy group"
- Would you mind if I copied this thread to Talk:Prawn farm massacre? Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- UTHR may be a 'notable' and 'reliable' source. But the question is, should we be treating the views of human rights organisations as 'neutral'? Should we be passing them off as 'uninvolved', 'neutral', 'dispassionate', 'mainstream' opinion? I think not. I think their opinions are worth a mention, but I'd rather we do it under a section like ===Reaactions of Human righs orgs=== where we can lump together the opinions of all notable and bonafide HROs covering the issue. Sarvagnya 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you think we should assume that human rights organisations are inherently non-neutral? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- When I said they werent 'neutral' I didnt mean that HROs are inherently either pro/anti-this or pro/anti-that. What I meant was that their reporting would certainly be coloured by the number of 'humans'/'innocents' killed or maimed. That is their bottomline. Because HROs by their very 'mission statements' see everthing through the prism of human rights. Governments on the other hand usually have a holistic look and are resigned to the fact that there's always going to be 'collateral' damage; that there's always going to be some 'innocents' that are going to lose life and limb.
- Both look at it from different ends(assign different weights to different aspects of the situation) and that is the reason neither can be considered truly NPOV. This is where the 'media' comes in. Here again, we can have 'avowedly' partisan media like tamilnet, tamilnation, uthayan etc., on one side and maybe few on the other side too. But then there's the 'mainstream' media - like the BBC, the Indian media, Reuters, CNN etc., who all cover the conflict widely; are 'uninvolved', 'removed', posess impeccable credentials and have a 'reputation' and can be reasonably assumed not to be 'emotionally invested' in the reporting. And if you observe, the mainstream media almost never mentions a HRO 'finding' without explicitly saying that it is a HRO 'finding'.
- So imo, partisan sources should be strictly kept out; HRO sources shouldnt be given undue weight and the article should be written only with the help of 'mainstream' sources. All establishment of 'notability' should strictly be only through 'mainstream' sources and HRO sources should come into the picture only after notability has been established. HROs, by their very nature are wont to give undue weight to 'visible' human suffering in their reportage. But an encyclopedia works differently and we shouldnt really be using HRO sources for establishing notability nor should we be passing their view as a 'disinterested', 'neutral' opinion. Sarvagnya 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. By your logic, every source is tainted. HRO sources are written from the prism of human rights. Government sources are written from the prism of preserving power. News sources are written from the prism of increasing sales. I agree, of course, that the opinions of HROs should be explicitly attributed (e.g., "According to the HRO, ..."), but you're mixing statements of opinion with statements of fact. We can accept statements of fact from reliable HROs. HROs may give undue weight to visible human suffering, but that's not the same as lying about casualty figures or the like. — Black Falcon (Talk) 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- If its only 'facts and figures', it really is not that much of an issue. We can always say, "...the Govt., said x people died, HRO said 2x died, BBC reported that 1.5x died..." and be done with it. The issue is when somebody starts piling on a coatrack by using HRO sources to establish notability. For HROs, every killing and every rape is a big deal. Yes. It is a big deal. So is every chicken butchered - if you asked PETA. The question is, is it encyclopedic? I think not. A killing or a rape doesnt become 'encyclopedic' simply because it happens in a war zone. Some of the 'cause celebres'(incidentally every one of them seems to be Tamil) of the Sri Lankan war wouldnt stand a chance of having an article in Enc. B'nnica in a million years. Apart from notablility, the other issue is with filling entire articles with "HROs said this.. HROs said that.. HROs called it ethnic cleansing.. HROs called it genocide.. HROs called it terrorism..". Also comparing HROs with news sources is not fair. Even though news sources make money, they also have editorial boards and reasonably well defined journalistic standards/methods, regulatory bodies etc.,. If a wider sampling of mainstream articles and not just a collage of partisan sources and HROs (in the guise of NPOV and 'balance') can be used to cite these articles many of the problems would vanish. Sarvagnya 22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I partly agree. Most of the incidents that human rights organisation write reports about are not notable. However, if enough HROs (especially notable, reliable HROs) write about an incident, indicating that they consider it noteworthy, then that incident meets our inclusion criteria. However, I don't see how what you've written above is relevant to the Prawn farm massacre article. That incident clearly is notable and the UTHR source is used only to support 1-2 sentences. I also want to reiterate my belief that I think you discount HRO sources too much; governments are not always honest reporters of the truth as you suggested in your initial comment ("a holistic look"). I agree that mainstream sources are necessary to write an article, but don't agree with your assumption that HRO sources are inherently more partisan that news or government sources (some HROs are and some aren't). Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- If its only 'facts and figures', it really is not that much of an issue. We can always say, "...the Govt., said x people died, HRO said 2x died, BBC reported that 1.5x died..." and be done with it. The issue is when somebody starts piling on a coatrack by using HRO sources to establish notability. For HROs, every killing and every rape is a big deal. Yes. It is a big deal. So is every chicken butchered - if you asked PETA. The question is, is it encyclopedic? I think not. A killing or a rape doesnt become 'encyclopedic' simply because it happens in a war zone. Some of the 'cause celebres'(incidentally every one of them seems to be Tamil) of the Sri Lankan war wouldnt stand a chance of having an article in Enc. B'nnica in a million years. Apart from notablility, the other issue is with filling entire articles with "HROs said this.. HROs said that.. HROs called it ethnic cleansing.. HROs called it genocide.. HROs called it terrorism..". Also comparing HROs with news sources is not fair. Even though news sources make money, they also have editorial boards and reasonably well defined journalistic standards/methods, regulatory bodies etc.,. If a wider sampling of mainstream articles and not just a collage of partisan sources and HROs (in the guise of NPOV and 'balance') can be used to cite these articles many of the problems would vanish. Sarvagnya 22:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. By your logic, every source is tainted. HRO sources are written from the prism of human rights. Government sources are written from the prism of preserving power. News sources are written from the prism of increasing sales. I agree, of course, that the opinions of HROs should be explicitly attributed (e.g., "According to the HRO, ..."), but you're mixing statements of opinion with statements of fact. We can accept statements of fact from reliable HROs. HROs may give undue weight to visible human suffering, but that's not the same as lying about casualty figures or the like. — Black Falcon (Talk) 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can paste this in the talk page. I should have done that insted. I am sorry for not doing that. Human rights organisations are NPOV. Specially one like UTHR which shows violations by both sides. If we were to have them in its own header then we should NEVER say who are suspected to have done the violation in the Lead, Background and incident. Following that logic by Sarvagnya we should have a section ===Suspect=== and then we should have another subheader saying suspected by, reaction to suspecion and much, much more. Watchdogb 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you think we should assume that human rights organisations are inherently non-neutral? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- UTHR may be a 'notable' and 'reliable' source. But the question is, should we be treating the views of human rights organisations as 'neutral'? Should we be passing them off as 'uninvolved', 'neutral', 'dispassionate', 'mainstream' opinion? I think not. I think their opinions are worth a mention, but I'd rather we do it under a section like ===Reaactions of Human righs orgs=== where we can lump together the opinions of all notable and bonafide HROs covering the issue. Sarvagnya 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
XfD's
Hi, I'm just curious why you nominate so many articles and templates for deletion. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't, really. The 25 or so templates I nominated in the past two days are the exception, rather than the rule. I'm just clearing through a few categories of unused and/or unnecessary templates. — Black Falcon (Talk) 01:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In reply, I'm trying to save the template, I mean he starred in these films. Why not delete the one for Al Pacino? Cheers, JetLover (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Adding it to many pages won't save it, since I've also nominated for deletion templates with dozens of transclusions. Moreover, the template is not worth saving. Yes, he starred in the films ... but there's no reason for the filmography of every actor in a film to appear on that film's page. There is no connection between those films except one actor out of dozens. Also, the Pacino template is nominated for deletion as well (not by me, though). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty helpful, I think a moviegoer such as myself would enjoy seeing some of the actors other works. I just don't think you should be so trigger-happy on nominating SO many things for deletion is all. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's an article about the film, not the actor. If you want information about the actor's other works, all you have to do is click the link to their article. Also, I am not trigger-happy ... these types of templates have been consistently deleted and I'm merely clearing a backlog that others had not paid attention to for a few months. — Black Falcon (Talk) 01:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, sorry if I seemed rude or anything. If I did come off like a jerk please accept my apologies. Thanks. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- No apologies needed, I assure you. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, sorry if I seemed rude or anything. If I did come off like a jerk please accept my apologies. Thanks. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's an article about the film, not the actor. If you want information about the actor's other works, all you have to do is click the link to their article. Also, I am not trigger-happy ... these types of templates have been consistently deleted and I'm merely clearing a backlog that others had not paid attention to for a few months. — Black Falcon (Talk) 01:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty helpful, I think a moviegoer such as myself would enjoy seeing some of the actors other works. I just don't think you should be so trigger-happy on nominating SO many things for deletion is all. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for notfying me of the TFD on Audrey Hepburn. I completely reject the rationale behind the nomination however. Are you trying to say that no catgorizing of actors is to be allowed on Wikipedia? We already went through this song and dance about a year ago when Wikipedia banned "Films by actor" categories and we were all told to create templates. Or is this just another example of how Wikipedia is an unstable community that cannot make up it's mind about anything? 23skidoo 12:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Categorising of actors is certainly allowed. However, there is no reason that for the article Cold Mountain to mention that Nicole Kidman also starred in The Stepford Wives. And it most definitely doesn't need to mention the complete filmography of every single actor with an article. Actor filmographies belong in the actors' articles (or a separate "filmography" article). — Black Falcon (Talk) 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Black Falcon, In the above article the views of Scholars At Risk has been removed number of times without proper reasons. I am looking for a third opinion. Thanks Taprobanus 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I have modified the article (diff) in a way that, I think, largely addresses the issue. I can understand Sarvagnya's objection regarding undue weight, but believe it should be solved through the addition of content (e.g. reactions by the police) rather than removal. I've merged the individual sections and placed everything under a "Reactions" heading, which is itself a subsection of a "Kidnapping" section (the article should ideally present a full biography and not just coverage of the kidnapping). Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Great job, sorry for getting you involved in these situations. Now the Lead is being modified but not according to WP:LEAD. Thanks Taprobanus 22:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks and no problem. I don't see any significant change in the lead ... could you point it out please? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Great job, sorry for getting you involved in these situations. Now the Lead is being modified but not according to WP:LEAD. Thanks Taprobanus 22:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Can you take a look at the article now please? Some users are trying to censor wikipeida specially the lead. He disappeared in a High Security Zone. It is important to say that he was indeed abducted at a High Security Zone because that is exactly where he was abducted. Cited material is also removed in the latest edit. Please have a look. Thanks Watchdogb 04:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I also can give citation that says he was abducted in a High Security Zone which was heavily guarded by Army and Police. Which is from Human Rights Watch. Watchdogb 04:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see no reason that the article shouldn't note that he disappeared in a high-security zone. As for the latter issue, it's better to avoid a statement like "X is suspected" in favour of an attributed statement like "Y suspects X". I hope that helps. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I will find statements that say "X is suspected" and change it to "Y suspects X". Thank again. Watchdogb 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Portal:Africa and fp
You are welcome to apply for Featured Portal status around September as it looks fine. Best, feydey 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your recommendations for fixing up the portal. I'm curious about one thing: what is the purpose of delaying the nomination? Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi
The category has been deleted please close the discussion. SLSB talk • contrib 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Free Images
Where can I find a list of free images? Considering Mario was deleted off my userbox. Thanks and please respond on my talk. SLSB talk • contrib 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Template:Sutherland movies
Template was replaced in the same place, it was vandalized without reason. A complete filmiography article was created, Thanks. Parallel33
Some users are removing RS citations and information. Can you please have a look thanks Watchdogb 01:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC).
- After some thought, I have proposed a merge to Human rights in Sri Lanka, in part because the "Allegations of ..." article seems doomed to be eternally the subject of disputes. Perhaps relocating the content to a more neutral title (and refocusing it as needed) will take care of some issues. I will take a look at the two articles you noted below shortly. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Can you also take a look at Vaharai Bombing Where citation from HRW report is taken off and said it is dubious. Just because someone does not agree with what a RS says does not make it UnRS. Please take a look as an edit war is sure to break out. Further can you also take a look at Allaipiddy massacre article. In the Allaipiddy massacre I used a citation that has been used by HRW itself and some users seem to think it is UnRS. Please clarify things. Thanks Watchdogb 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the reply and suggestion. I will sleep on this issue and reply on the necessary page. Watchdogb 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC). PS I am sorry for always coming to you when problem arise in SL related articles. However, you are one of the people who knows the SL conflict to a reasonable level. This is primarily the reason for always coming to you. Thanks Watchdogb 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problem ... I'm more than happy to help when I can. Civil conflict is one of my primary interests and the SL conflict is, after Africa and political science, one of my main areas of editing. — Black Falcon (Talk) 21:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Beautiful neutral work at Allaipiddy massacre. Thanks for the clean up. Watchdogb 22:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Beautiful neutral work at Allaipiddy massacre. Thanks for the clean up. Watchdogb 22:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka is tagged with POV and the the concern raised is taken care of. However, some users claim that this article exist from "cherry picked" sources. Can you please comment on this issue on the article's talk page ? Thanks Watchdogb 18:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problem ... I'm more than happy to help when I can. Civil conflict is one of my primary interests and the SL conflict is, after Africa and political science, one of my main areas of editing. — Black Falcon (Talk) 21:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Non-wikipedians who disrupted wikipedia to make a point
Category:Non-wikipedians who disrupted wikipedia to make a point: it is a blacklist, if you wish to call it so. We do have categories for, eg. sockpuppetteers. It is not invasion into privacy, per GFDL license. It belongs to the history of wikipedia. It is valid and interesting topic of research on how people tried and failed to mess with wikipedia. However I myself came to a conclusion that category is meaningless here. A commented list makes much more sense. `'Míkka 17:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:List of editors who disrupted Wikipedia to make a point outside Wikipedia. `'Míkka 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Moving notability discussion here
On Wikipedia_talk:Notability, you said "I don't know whether the people starting articles on episodes of the The Simpsons ask themselves that ["has this episode received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?"], but if they don't, they should."
First, I agree that according to the notability guideline, they should ask themselves that question. So I'm not discussing what the policies and guidelines actually say here. I want to ask you about what you think should happen or should be the case.
People are clearly writing articles about new episodes of The Simpsons as a matter of course, and when you look at a random episode (I chose this one: Grift_of_the_Magi), there's no evidence of notability. The two external links are to, essentially, topic-specific encyclopedias. And of course this makes sense: how often would an individual episode of The Simpsons receive significant coverage?
So, my first question: would you like to see people stop writing articles about new episodes of The Simpsons?
But there are now pages for every episode of The Simpsons. Maybe not the most recent ones, but my point is that none are missing in the middle. What the Wikipedians have created is an encyclopedic coverage of The Simpsons. They've done a great job, in my opinion.
So my second question is this, ignoring the actual work involved in removing such pages from Wikipedia (including fixing references), and ignoring the obvious contentiousness, would you like to see the episodes that are not notable removed from Wikipedia?
I guess you could wonder why I'm asking these questions. I guess I really am trying to understand what Notability means to the Wikipedia community.
-- BenBildstein 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- In response to your first question: not necessarily (I'll explain more below). I would, however, like them to spend more effort on improving existing articles about the series and its characters and seasons, or to write better episode articles that do not contain only in-universe information.
- In response to your second question: not particularly. If by "removed" you mean "deleted", then no. I do, however, support merging short articles into "list of episodes" pages (though I dislike the heavy-handed approach of redirecting episode pages en masse without discussion). In general, I don't oppose the inclusion of episode articles that can provide even a little out-of-universe information beyond the basics contained in Template:Infobox Television episode.
- I don't think every episode of every TV series ought to have its own article (at most, a redirect). Still, I consider myself more inclusionist when it comes to episode articles as opposed to other types of articles. The reason is completeness of coverage: episode articles are effectively subpages of the main article on the TV series. Though I don't subscribe to the notion of "notability by association", I view the creation of episode articles and "list of episodes" pages as largely editorial decisions regarding the organisation of content. However, in following that point of view, we go back to my first point: in order to justify the splitting of content (i.e. the creation of articles on subtopics), the main article(s) must be improved and expanded first.
- As you can probably discern, my personal position does not perfectly match a strict reading of Wikipedia:Notability. However, I think it tries to find a balance between the requirements of the notability guidelines, completeness of coverage, and editorial discretion when it comes to organising content.
- I don't know that my response can provide an answer to the question of "what notability means to the Wikipedia community" as there are many who disagree with me and who believe every separate article should prove its own notability, though that may partly be a backlash against the proliferation of low-quality episode articles (few are sourced or contain anything but a plot summary). However, I hope that it at least elucidates my position. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding impolite, for most editors (administrators) here, it is a moving target.
- Unfortunately, the idea of improving or embellishing on a topic, person, or article, has given way to an instant delete syndrome. The concept of adding to information the world can get to is now taking a "back seat" to a destructive force within our ranks. That force, or cabal, will persist and grow if allowed the freedom to multiply. Everywhere I go, someone is quick to block before being willing to listen. We will certainly not open accounts. The accounts all become accused of being puppets. BTW, when is a falcon not black? 222.171.190.72 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that there is a certain over-reliance on deletion as a cleanup tool. This is particularly evident when editors start nominations for articles without first seeking to improve them (or at least checking, via a Google search, whether improvement is possible). However, the opposite also exists: there are those who frequently insist on the retention of articles without improving them or, at times, without even checking whether they can be improved. Though both are harmful, I'm not sure I'd label either one of these modi operandi as a force or cabal.
- I'm unaware of the circumstances of any blocks or accusations of sockpuppetry you may have encountered, so I can't comment on that.
- Finally: Brown Falcon. :)
- — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
So there are those that nominate articles for deletion to readily, and those that unreasonably resist deletion. I see so many people unhappy about deletion that I really do believe it is a problem, though it's not a problem I've been effected by. My worry is that good quality encyclopedic content is being removed because it is placed in non-notable topics. I am actually pro-deletion when it comes to unsatisfactory content. But I'd much rather see good content in a non-notable page than both deleted.
Not that you needed a position statement from me :) -- BenBildstein 11:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Closing note on Category: Citizens of the Milky Way
ROFL! That is one of the funniest closing notes I have ever read. Bravo. Horologium t-c 16:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- . — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Proofreaders al-en
Thanks a lot for closing those. I can't believe I forgot about CSD C1. -Andrew c [talk] 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
UCFD noms for language cats
You have suggested deleting all of the language cats I nominated (a move which I fully support), but I have not tagged the "parent" cats (the merge targets for each of the cats under discussion). Should I do so, to include them in the discussion? I'd hate for them to go to DRV because of wikilawyering over cats which were not included in the discussion getting nuked.
BTW, I will be submitting more tonight; several more English subcats for deletion, some -N cats for constructed languages, and a bunch of renames to conform to ISO 639 naming conventions. I didn't want to submit 20 nominations or so all in one day, so I split it up a little. I still have dozens of cats to go through (I've finished the ISO 639-1 languages, but I am only through the "D"s on ISO 639-3 list). There are a couple of real doozies out there, and I fear that the last round of deletions/merges I plan to propose will be quite contentious. (There are political overtones to some of the cats, dating back to the cold war.) Horologium t-c 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not sure. On the one hand, it would be nice to do away with all of the categories at once. On the other, including the parent categories will make the discussion more contentious and may yield a "no consensus" result (I'd rather see the subcats merged into their parents than that), so it may be worth waiting until these discussions are closed to nominate the parent categories. I really can't say which is the better option.
- More generally, I had no idea that Category:Wikipedians by language included so many needless levels. I'd always thought of that category as organised and precise. Go figure. — Black Falcon (Talk) 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it was well-organized when it was originally set up, but you forget how easy it is to create stupid, useless categories for userboxen, which was why I was so eager to totally dissociate all categories from userboxen and create some type of system to approve adding them back in. I was slapped down when I proposed it at Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#A radical proposal, so I stopped suggesting it. I still think it's a good idea, but it doesn't have the required support.
- There are a few single-layer User en-xx cats that I left out of the discussion (en-ms, for Malaysia and en-sa, for South Africa, that can be revisited if we decide to kill the parent categories, but for now I'll let them sit quietly, as they are not ridiculously subcategorized like many of the others. Horologium t-c 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I just wanted to let you know that I have consolidated most of the "national" variations of English categories into a single nomination, at the request of After Midnight, who seems to get the thankless task of closing all of the UCFD discussions.(I left out Australian, because its discussion thread is different because of some of the issues behind that category). Consequently, I removed several of your comments and retained just the last one. Your comments for each appeared to be substantially similar for each, so I hope that is not an issue. Ordinarily I don't refactor or remove another editor's comments, but I understood AM's frustration at the 30-some nominations (and closure actions) my actions had generated. AM and I discussed it on my talk page, under the heading "UCFD" (I only have three topics in on my talk page right now, so no direct link). Horologium t-c 13:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problem and thanks for letting me know. As far as I can recall, my comments were identical, considering that essentially the same issues apply to all. Cheers, — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
0RR
Just wanted to say, away from the 'thesis that anyone can edit' that is the RfArb, that your comment on 0RR [7] is essentially important, and hits one of the main nails on the head. Nicely put. Splash - tk 22:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
ANI
- Thanks Taprobanus 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians by birth year
Would you have any problems/concerns with splitting your nom into two: One for the decades, and one for the individual years? - jc37 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you mean removing the six "decades" categories from the nomination and starting a new nomination for them, then ... I don't exactly have a problem with it, but I don't really see the point, since neither classification fosters collaboration. Moreover, there is already a precedent for deleting by-decade categories (the deletion of the "in their xx's categories", which was upheld at deletion review). Is there a particular reason that you think the two should be considered separately? — Black Falcon (Talk) 21:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you were to renominate I would vote to delelte the decade cats as uselss information but I remains committed to voting keep re the year cats, SqueakBox 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think sqeakbox illustrated quite nicely why the two should be considered separately. : ) - jc37 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it's worth raising this issue in the discussion to let the closing admin decide. Given how many people have participated, it's not really my nomination anymore. — Black Falcon (Talk) 22:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think sqeakbox illustrated quite nicely why the two should be considered separately. : ) - jc37 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you were to renominate I would vote to delelte the decade cats as uselss information but I remains committed to voting keep re the year cats, SqueakBox 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixing the closure
Thanks for catching this. I was trying to correct the previous version, which stated: "the result of the debate was result", but apparently made a mistake of my own. Thanks again, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I've replied to your question at my talk page.
- No problem. I was thinking about fixing it myself, but hadn't yet decided if it was worth worrying about. Though it's not required, one of us should probably drop a note on After Midnight's talk page, just to let them know. - jc37 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:DOT
Some of the templates are ready to be deleted. Do you have any suggestions for an edit summary? Also, should a log of some sort be kept of templates that have been deleted through WP:DOT? Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps something like:
CSD G6 (housekeeping): orphaned and deprecated template, tagged with {{deprecated}} for 14 days without objection
- or
Housekeeping: orphaned and deprecated template, tagged with {{deprecated}} for 14 days without objection (CSD G6)
- I don't know how feasible a log is, considering the number of pages that might eventually be deleted under WP:DOT. By the way, is there any general way of tracking when the tags were added (aside from individually checking the history of each template)? — Black Falcon (Talk) 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- There isn't. I thought about having sub-categories, which would be easy to make due to a date parameter being used with {{deprecated}}. However, that would be a lot of sub-categories. I guess the easiest way right now would be to look at my contribs with only templates showing (here). Any entry with an edit summary of "+deprecated tag" and a rollback link are ones that are currently marked. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed that a full list of templates ready for deletion is on the WP:DOT page, in the section "Templates ready to be deleted". I assume it's a function of the code of Template:Deprecated. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you knew about that function, and just wanted a day-by-day breakdown for something else. As you can see, {{deprecated}} puts the templates in one cat upon the original tagging, and then puts it in both cats after 14 days. Gotta love ParserFunctions. : - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed that a full list of templates ready for deletion is on the WP:DOT page, in the section "Templates ready to be deleted". I assume it's a function of the code of Template:Deprecated. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- There isn't. I thought about having sub-categories, which would be easy to make due to a date parameter being used with {{deprecated}}. However, that would be a lot of sub-categories. I guess the easiest way right now would be to look at my contribs with only templates showing (here). Any entry with an edit summary of "+deprecated tag" and a rollback link are ones that are currently marked. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have created the article St. Phillip Neri church bombing. Can you take a look at the article when you are free? I feel that I should send it through a neutral eye. Be Bold and let me know and problems with the article that you might not be able to fix. Thanks Watchdogb 21:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have looked over and edited the article (see diff). I think it was well-written and representative of the sources and my changes consist mostly of adding the "Reactions" section and reordering – several times, actually ... I couldn't make up my mind
:)
– content in the "Incident" section. Please make any necessary corrections/reverts/additions.Also, I've proposed a pagemove on the article's talk page.Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)- Actually, I'm no longer sure that a pagemove is necessary. I was going to propose renaming to St. Philip Neri Church shelling, but I'm not certain it's necessary. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your hard work and nice words. You have done a great job editing the article to make it proper. Thanks again Watchdogb 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing "Fr Brown blamed the SLA" as it is not backed up by any citations and I got mixed up with other allegations. Watchdogb 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- OMG, the ratinale for the picture unbelivable :)))Taprobanus 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. The rationale could still be disputed as taking an image of the site is not technically impossible, but I think there are enough factors involved in this particular case to justify using the image under fair use. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- OMG, the ratinale for the picture unbelivable :)))Taprobanus 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing "Fr Brown blamed the SLA" as it is not backed up by any citations and I got mixed up with other allegations. Watchdogb 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your hard work and nice words. You have done a great job editing the article to make it proper. Thanks again Watchdogb 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm no longer sure that a pagemove is necessary. I was going to propose renaming to St. Philip Neri Church shelling, but I'm not certain it's necessary. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
MFD
That seems like a reasonable call on the BJAODN case, both by you and by Diablo. >Radiant< 07:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For the Tireless contribution in fixing and editing SL related articles. Thanks and keep up the good work! Watchdogb 17:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
More fun with language cats
In the discussion for the Creek language cat, you suggested moving the template as well. Is this something that can be speedily done, or do I need to go through the whole WP:TFD thing? The reason I ask is because of all of the moves done over the past week; I have already changed the text inside the box (the two- or three-letter code) to match the new cat, but now it doesn't match the name of the template. I really don't want to go through the hassle of TFDing them to change a couple of letters, but I don't have too much of an issue with a speedy. (This would also apply to some of the other changes, but not the Alemannic cats; those I am going to run through TFD because they are on so many user pages, and because of the bizarre fashion in which I have advocated fixing them. Horologium t-c 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Renaming a template, especially when doing so is not overly controversial or has the implicit support of a UCfD discussion, does not require a TfD discussion. Only if someone persistently objects to a rename should further discussion (perhaps at Wikipedia:Requested moves) become necessary. I think that renaming these templates certainly falls under individual editorial discretion. Moreover, for any templates that are uncontroversial deletion candidates (i.e. that are orphaned, deprecated, and/or serve no real purpose), you can seek deletion by tagging the template as {{deprecated}}. Controversial deletions should still go through WP:TFD, but 'housekeeping'-type deletions can be handled via Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- <smacks forehead> D'oh! I am so used to suggesting category renames that I forgot that templates can be moved by anyone, not just admins. I'll go ahead and take care of the ones that have already been done. Horologium t-c 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would you believe this...I changed the ma templates to arz (as per the UCfD decision) and ANOTHER Egyptian Arabic speaker (not the one with whom you had a long debate, but another one) reverted all of my changes? I'll take this one to TfD, because now I am really irritated. This is a prime example of why I had run all the cats separately earlier; after my experience with the psuedoreligionist(sic) categories, I didn't want to have a huge debate over one category in the group, and that one cat has been the source of all of the strife over what should have been a non-controversial move. Gahhh. Horologium t-c 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Though the editor is technically correct that "templates and categories are not the same", I think that conformance of the template and category names would be useful to avoid confusion. It might be easier to just create a redirect to Template:User ma from Template:User arz. At least that way people who search for the "arz" code will find the template. — Black Falcon (Talk) 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that. I just responded to him on my talk page, telling him I'd create redirects. Oy.The redirects were automatically created when he moved the cats back to their original location, so I don't have to do anything. Horologium t-c 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Though the editor is technically correct that "templates and categories are not the same", I think that conformance of the template and category names would be useful to avoid confusion. It might be easier to just create a redirect to Template:User ma from Template:User arz. At least that way people who search for the "arz" code will find the template. — Black Falcon (Talk) 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would you believe this...I changed the ma templates to arz (as per the UCfD decision) and ANOTHER Egyptian Arabic speaker (not the one with whom you had a long debate, but another one) reverted all of my changes? I'll take this one to TfD, because now I am really irritated. This is a prime example of why I had run all the cats separately earlier; after my experience with the psuedoreligionist(sic) categories, I didn't want to have a huge debate over one category in the group, and that one cat has been the source of all of the strife over what should have been a non-controversial move. Gahhh. Horologium t-c 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- <smacks forehead> D'oh! I am so used to suggesting category renames that I forgot that templates can be moved by anyone, not just admins. I'll go ahead and take care of the ones that have already been done. Horologium t-c 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"Wanna find an easter egg?" category
Hi. I am BlooWilt. I am the maker of this category, and I'd like to say that the category was made to help people on my easter egg hunt find my 14th easter egg. It would be nice if there was some way to make the category without putting it into public. --BlooWilt on the wikiprowl, later! 17:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is no way to create a page without making it public. Perhaps you could link to #14 directly from the text of the InuYasha userbox. — Black Falcon (Talk) 02:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I guess. Though that will take out some of the fun, but okay. --BlooWilt on the wikiprowl, later! 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb you again. Certain user is adding NPOV/totally disputed tags without properly giving reason to the tagging. Can you please comment on this act. Thank you Watchdogb 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I initially reverted his edit, but it seems he reverted me as well. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is currently protected. The user is just pulling things out of his wealth of knowledge about everything but fail to give any reference to back his claims. I am really confused on what to do. Oh, and thanks for your comments. Watchdogb 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nice work on the article. It looks much better now. Thanks for your hard work Watchdogb 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP
You just protected a flawed and weakened version of one of our most important core policies. - 21:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I protected the version that happened to be there when I noticed the edit-warring. I'm sure that either version would have been the "wrong version". If there are any particularly important and/or well-established provisions that are missing from this version, please point them out. As far as I could tell, there were only two major differences between your and Wikidemo's versions (putting aside minor differences in wording): the inclusion/exclusion of the "or in obscure newspapers" provision and of the unreliable external links provision. In any case, the page protection is for 48 hours only. Hopefully agreement can be reached by or before then. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:BLP/N#WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself (top). Thank you. --NYScholar 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- [Updated there today. --NYScholar 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)]
- Thank you for letting me know. I think the notifications will be useful if they succeed at bringing new participants/perspectives to the discussion. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that has not occurred yet. After I posted a request for edit template on the page, I realized that the protected status expired (acc. to the protection log); if I am incorrect in removing the expired template, please advise. Please consult the problem of the policy/guideline conflict that I mention at end of Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. I do hope that more discussion can take place before the policy is rewritten without "wide consensus." [I think it needs reverting back to what it was before the edit war that occurred circa August 12/13 and after that. Then perhaps some "wide consensus" will occur with additional comments from concerned people. If there is no concern, then I don't know why the project policy page WP:BLP had to be changed from SV's version pre- and circa-August 12, 2007 version.] Thanks again. --NYScholar 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- You posted the notices about 30 hours ago ... perhaps people will trickle in. And yes, the protection expired about 5.5 hours before your post, so the {{pp-dispute}} tag should be removed. If the notices you posted do not produce an inflow of new participants, perhaps you might consider adding {{underdiscussion}} to solicit comments. Then again, that creates the possibility that the presence of the tag itself may become the subject of an edit war. ;) — Black Falcon (Talk) 04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that has not occurred yet. After I posted a request for edit template on the page, I realized that the protected status expired (acc. to the protection log); if I am incorrect in removing the expired template, please advise. Please consult the problem of the policy/guideline conflict that I mention at end of Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. I do hope that more discussion can take place before the policy is rewritten without "wide consensus." [I think it needs reverting back to what it was before the edit war that occurred circa August 12/13 and after that. Then perhaps some "wide consensus" will occur with additional comments from concerned people. If there is no concern, then I don't know why the project policy page WP:BLP had to be changed from SV's version pre- and circa-August 12, 2007 version.] Thanks again. --NYScholar 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know. I think the notifications will be useful if they succeed at bringing new participants/perspectives to the discussion. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Consensus
In what ways does consensus apply to talk pages? Usually it is where disagreements are discussed through discourse and both arguments should remain in the history, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
CSD A7 exclusivity: don't understand comment
You said in [8]'s edit comment: The criterion, as worded, is exclusive. Moreover, some articles, like ones about pets, should be speedied, so it's better to leave some wiggle-room).
As a non-native English speaker, I can't make head or tail of that - do you want the list to be exclusive ("it is"), or do you want it to be nonexclusive ("wiggle room")? I've now seen so many people fall into discussions about whether or not it is exclusive that I find the claim that the current text is clear very hard to understand. --Alvestrand 19:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise for the unclear edit summary. What I meant to say was this: As currently worded ("An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not state ...") the list technically is exclusive. Though I don't support an expansion of A7 to all articles (as some people on the talk page are pushing for), I also think that A7 can (in limited cases) justifiably be applied to articlesnot about a person, group, band, club, company, or web content. For instance: an article about an individual animal that doesn't assert significance. Of course, some redundancy for the sake of clarity may be necessary, so perhaps my edit was ill-advised. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
RE: RE: Category:Users who support UNlimited Taiwan
yeah, go ahead and tag and bag it, lol - Fugitivedread 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)