User talk:Black Falcon

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome back!

Now run away, fast.  :) Glad to see you around. --Kbdank71 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Run away? Fast? ... Nah, it sounds like it'd be a lot of work. ;) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How's tricks?

Hi there! It's been a while, hasn't it? :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(picks my jaw up off the floor)

Wow, welcome back! : )

Incidentally, kbdank isn't half wrong about "run away fast".

Cfd has been "interesting" (among many many other things).

I just came back from wikibreak myself (though nothing like yours : )

Is it within etiquette to ask what happened? (you can email it if you'd prefer.) If not, I also fully understand that as well.

Anyway, again glad you're back, you're definitely one of my "sorely missed" individuals : )

Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I truly appreciate your warm welcome! I had begun to start missing editing, and this article in the BBC was apparently the final push.

My absence was due to a combination of work, burnout, and a particularly unpleasant email conversation (regarding my nomination for deletion of a category). Work caused my sudden wikibreak and the latter two turned it into an extended vacation.

While I can't control the tone of the emails I receive, I plan to proceed with a more eventualist approach to editing and, for now, limit my editing in the project namespace mostly to XFD and the WikiProjects in which I participate.

How have you been? I hope you're well and have seen a good start to the new year. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Is the situation at CFD related to this?

I wondered about that.

Several people (including myself) got various emails right around that time.

I think nearly every closer has a wikibreak of some sort or other since then. SO don't feel alone : )

As for email, one thing that might help is to suggest to any detractors that you limit any such "discussions" to being on-wiki. That way, there's also a transparent record. (Honestly, only 2 people have my email address, and both were due to helping me with some technical issues awile back. (Though I still enjoy personal conversation with one of them.)

Anyway, as for me, I'm doing "ok". (Check out my talk page for some interesting recent links : )

I went on a somewhat lengthy wikibreak myself.

And no, not as far as I know, though that was "one" of the interesting issues.

It's been several things, and from what I can tell giving the last few months of AfD a glance, it's not entirely isolated to CFD.

I think it's probably prudent to (at least for now), leave them unsaid, but if you'd like details, most of the regular closers (Kbdank71, Good Ol'factory, Vegaswikian, etc.) probably would be much better for details. (Especially since, as I mentioned, I just came back from Wikibreak myself.)

Speaking of which, I'm still on the fence as to how much I want to just "jump in" again. I get the urge and start to help, and then get a quick reminder why I took the wikibreak...lol

And of course, there's always that pesky RL calling one away : )

So I'm sort of intermittent atm. Though I have a feeling that if more people like you are around, I'll find myself up to my elbows in editing again : )

Anyway, just wanted to say it again, glad to see you're back.

(Now if only we could have the return of some others that are sorely missed as well, sigh. I still miss David Kernow, and his want to try to find actual consensus, with his never ending deluge of new ideas; or Dr. Submillimeter, calm, and always had evidence to back up opinion; or the typical calmness of After Midnight. or or or. Oh well. I content myself with the idea that perhaps such past friends are still around, just under new guises for various reasons. (I never could get into that myself. I tried once awhile after becoming an admin, upon the advice of another admin who I respect, but it didn't even last a day lol. I'm "me", and there's just no masking that : )

Wow this became long. Well, one last thing, as always, feel free to drop me a note or notice about whatever you're working on, or whatever, any time : ) - jc37 10:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I enabled the option to receive e-mail from other users more than a year ago—when I created an e-mail account for use just for WP-related editing—so I don't know if I can really restrict who can e-mail me anymore; moreover, I'm loathe to do so because of one bad experience.

I think "interesting" is an appropriate description of some of the links—or, rather, the discussions to which they lead—on your talk page. :)

As for the other thing, I've learned it's best not to let curiousity become a reason for reviving unpleasant memories or dead horses (at least I hope they're dead) :)

I haven't been active in the project as long as you have, so I haven't seen quite as many friends leave, but I can certainly appreciate the feeling. To some extent, I think anyone who's been an editor for a while has needed to accept, to some degree, Antandrus' 29th observation (thanks to Kris for linking to the page). I also take comfort in the idea that sometimes it's good for good editors to leave—good not for the project, but for the editors themselves; of course, it's best to avoid the circumstances that lead to this, but...

Again, I'm glad to be back and happy to see that you are all still here. And thank you for your open invite; you are, of course, welcome to do the same with me. Best, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, welcome back indeed. I was getting worried something might have happened to you. UCFD will always be in need of more contributors, not to mention the severely outdated topical index, which apparently only you had the patience to work on (if you are so inclined to return to this niche of the enyclopedia, that is). There are several months of UCFD archives you probably want to catch up on just to see the progress made, virtually all positive if I'm guessing your positions correctly. VegaDark (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the suddenness of my departure; initially, I intended it to last only about one or two weeks—enough time for me to finish my work assignment—but a subsequent event (see above) prolonged it significantly. In retrospect, I definitely should have added some type of notice to my talk page at the outset of my break.

I do plan to return to UCFD, and I will try to update the topical index this weekend. I've checked some of the archives for the past four months, and I applaud you for your continuing cleanup effort. Would I be correct to assume that you regularly check Special:Newpages, filtered for the category namespace, for new, inappropriate user categories? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, even better. Now I use Wikipedia:Database reports/User categories and Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories to get most of my nominations, or sometimes use the prefix index if I don't want to wait for the first page to update. Although your method seems interesting, I may have to give that a try as well. VegaDark (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad I asked. :)

The main list includes more than a few of the reports I've wanted to request (or actually have requested) the regulars at WP:BOTREQ and WP:VPT to generate. Thanks! –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Falcon, welcome back for what ever it is worth. I was worried about you and almost tempted to e-mail you but wanted to respect your space and did'nt. Pedia work is addictive and at end not sure that much rewarding anyway, so I am not unhappy to see people take a break once in a while. For me, I do it out of compulsion (of what I dont know). Anyway, yes the Sri Lankan Tamil people article should reach FA status but re reading it made me understand how much more prose work is left. Considering that I am not a native English speaker, it is someone else's burden. Currently I am consolidating two manufacturing plants in real life so taking it easy on pedia. Also I have a decades old two massacre series articles of DYK quality pending in my mind. If it were good old times, I would have had them done by now. I also know the current phase of the Sri Lankan civil war will probably end up creating a few more articles, especially about the shelling of the hospital in Puthukudiruppu. I hope the slaughter comes to an end soon. The president says it is a question of few more days. I hope he is right if not it is 100's of civilians a day who are dying. Anyway hope to see you in SLR soon. Also e-mail me. I have a question for you. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the issue of prose is insurmountable. The well-defined structure of the article makes it possible, in my opinion, to divide any improvement effort into more manageable parts. I am no expert at copyediting, but I would like to give it another try. I would also like to once again become active at SLR, though I may need to delay that a bit due to real-life time constrains.

On a more somber note, I am afraid you are correct that the conflict will produce more incidents that result in the deaths of large numbers of civilians. That innocent people are caught up in wars and conflicts seems, sadly, to be a tragic constant of human history.

I will send an e-mail to you momentarily. Truth be told, I haven't checked that e-mail account for several months... Anyway, it's good to talk/write with you again. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. I was beginning to worry as well. Horologium (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I really am sorry for the sudden nature of my departure and any worry I caused. Like I wrote above, I didn't expect it to last quite so long.

How's Florida this time of year? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It was really cold, although the cold spell has finally ended. It was in the high teens/low 20s (F°) for the past three or four mornings, but it's now a relatively balmy 70° (F), and warmer temps are predicted for the next couple of days. Walking several blocks and waiting for the bus when it's 22° outside is not my idea of fun... (wry grin)

There's nothing like the risk of frostnip to add excitement to one's mornings. : ) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Great to have you back, some holiday eh? I'll get around to starting those articles some time. I have done some work on African parks recently starting one in the R of Congo but I agree I want to get more of the articles up to good status and of course get the others up and running. Cordialmente. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 23:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Black Falcon's Day!

User:Black Falcon has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Black Falcon's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Black Falcon! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you for a wonderful surprise! –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gail O'Neill

I was just opening up the 11th to nominate it when I saw you beat me to it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw you did some copyediting. Feel free to add an infobox. She can probably use the same one as Damaris Lewis as a model or maybe she should have a journalist one. So far all I know is that in July 1987 she was 24 giving us the approximate birthdate. Probably other articles mentioned ages as well. One says she is 5'9".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The fields for the two templates are quite different, and I'm honestly not sure which should be used. I'm leaning toward {{Infobox journalist}}, since she is currently a journalist, but I suppose that the determining factor should be whether she is better known as a model or a journalist. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Decades template

If I do a decade template, I am not sure how to go about it procedurally. I don't think it counts as a DRV appropriate subject, because it would be so different from what was deleted as to be something new. But I don't know that just creating something slapping it on 100 pages and hoping no one takes it to TFD is so good an idea either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to start a discussion about it somewhere and then advertise the discussion at relevant talk pages, such as:

• Talk:Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
• Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)
• Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

To get more input, you may also consider notifying Woohookitty (closed the TfD), the person who closes the DRV (of course, this is all moot if the outcome of the DRV is to restore the templates), and perhaps a couple of other interested users (e.g. participants in the TfD and/or DRV, as well as members of related WikiProjects).

There's never a guarantee against a TfD nomination, but as long as the discussion is advertised at relevant locations, at least you'll have made a good-faith effort to gauge the community's consensus about the issue. ("Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community.") Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Of course, holding a discussion is a good alternative. I suppose since we are mostly talking about models, I should also post a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion in addition to many of the places that you mention. I will have to figure out the next step since I think the deletion is going to be endorsed. I think the typical model in the navbox is more like a Gail O'Neill than Jessica White. I have to think about the template in that context.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WikiProject Fashion would definitely be relevant to such a discussion.

Have you given any thought to the idea of creating a List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue models (information organized by model) or List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues (information organized by issue)? Such lists could contain information that is currently absent from Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue#Models, such as the names of photographers involved with a particular issue, as well as the type of detailed information that was present in previous versions of the userfied templates (example). I'd be happy to help with creating and organizing such lists (at the moment I don't have enough time to take on such a project alone, but I've added it to my list of long-term projects). I understand, of course, if you are not interested or don't have the time. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd surely help. Will it survive an AfD challenge? I have drafted the first decade template User:TonyTheTiger/Template:2000-2009SISwimsuit. Any thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would, as long as it was well organized (regardless of WP:POTENTIAL, which I happen to (mostly) agree with, I'm assuming that the organization and, by extension, appearance of a list affects editors' opinions about whether it is worth keeping; compare List of multiple Olympic gold medalists to List of piano makers). Such a list would not be indiscriminate and would complement the article about the Swimsuit Issue.

I think the decades template looks good and I wouldn't oppose its inclusion in articles about SI models (I'm wondering if it would look better or worse if the individual years were collapsed, but that's just a minor stylistic question). Nice! –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Baumhauerite

Hi Black Falcon. I created about a mineral named Baumhaumerite. Could you please edit the page? Here's the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumhauerite. Thanks! Neptunekh

Replied at User talk:Neptunekh#Re: Baumhauerite. (diff) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fictional characters by nationality

I have been browsing through the various categories over the past few days and I'm honestly not sure what the best way is to proceed: one or two big group nominations or a number of smaller nominations. For some, such as Fictional Afghans and Fictional Haitians (recreation), the case for deletion is the same as in the September 2008 CFD. However, do you think that there should be separate nominations for categories for fictional characters by ethnicity (e.g. Fictional Americans by ethnicity), by ethnicity-nationality (e.g. Fictional Italian Australians, Fictional Indian Britons), and by place of origin (e.g. Fictional Americans by state, Fictional people from Liverpool)? I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I empathise.

My initial thought is to just make it all a single nom, and explain how this is overcat. However, large noms can sometimes confuse (as you already know).

So if separate, Ethnicity and nationality in separate noms, for simplicity and clarity, I suppose. (Unless you think that that would be more confusing.)

As for the ethnicity/nationality intersection cats, list them separately (though together) as well.

And the "from" cats separate as well. Though I think they could reasonably be nommed with the nationality cats.

Hope this helps. - jc37 11:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It does. I'll write up a nomination for the nationality cats and then see if I can add in any a few other cats (such as the "from" cats, as you mentioned) while still keeping the nomination reasonably clear. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've posted the first two nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 14 (they are both for nationality cats, but I separated them because one group requires deletion whereas the other needs upmerging). In light of the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 21, however, the ethnicity and location categories probably require a more deliberate approach.

I can't help but notice, by the way, that the reasons for deletion of the nationality cats were never addressed in the two 21 October 2008 discussions. Most of the comments in favor of keeping highlighted a desire to retain the information, but none effectively addressed the argument that the information should be in a list rather than a category. A few noted that the current population of the categories was justifiable, but that ignores the fact that we never consider just what is currently in a category, but also what could be placed in it in the future based on its scope. Oh, well...

I think I'll wait a while to see how the nationality nominations go before posting the others. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

New discussions

See discussions on fashion model templates at Talk:Sports_Illustrated_Swimsuit_Issue#End_the_sexism_now_-_Swimsuit_Issue and Talk:Sports_Illustrated_Swimsuit_Issue#End_the_sexism_now_-_Magazine_templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gail O'Neill

On 18 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gail O'Neill, which you recently nominated. 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) 09:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: UCFD

None regularly go through the list, although User:Rockfang sometimes uses his bot to clear categories listed on the page. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrangling

FYI, there's a discussion going on at WT:WPM questioning your impartiality for closing the discussion of the deletion of the Senior Wrangler category, as you participated in the discussion prior to closing it. —David Eppstein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, March 1, 2009 (UTC).

Thank you, I appreciate the notice. I will post a brief reply at the project talk page. Thank you again, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Western cats went that-a-way!

Yikes, I was trying to save my comment endorsing your proposal, and suddenly the rug was pulled out. I'm guessing that you noticed that the cat pages hadn't been tagged yet? Cgingold (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sort of. It was only after I posted both nominations that I noticed the timestamp, and I hoped to make the change before anyone even noticed the new listing. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I just discovered that you left a note cleverly hidden in the edit summary... Cgingold (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would normally have left the section headers, along with a link to the actual location of the discussion, on the old day's page, but I didn't think anyone had noticed the nominations within the five minutes it took for me to post and remove them. I guess this should remind to me to check the time before posting or to tag the categories first... –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-project Africa

Hi Black Falcon! I need your help in being part of wiki-project Africa. Anything you would like help with, I'd be grateful to chip in with wTurtle (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Water Tortoise#WikiProject Africa (diff) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Martyn Godfrey

Hi! I made a page about an author named Martyn_Godfrey. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Godfrey. Could you please edit the page? Thanks!Neptunekh (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Neptunekh#Martyn Godfrey (diff) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

TfDs

Hello! I see you're one of the admins who closes TfD debates debates, so I just thought I'd ask how long do they stay open (it seems like they last longer than the five days AfDs last) and are they usually relisted if there is no consensus? I'm asking because I nominated a template and right now it's looking like a NC, and I thought if there was time I'd drop a (neutral) message on the WikiProject's talk page to see if there are more editors out there willing to join in. Thanks!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD debates usually are left open for 7 days; see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Templates for deletion page. If there is no consensus after 7 days, then it is up to the closer's discretion to either relist the discussion or close it as 'delete' (quoted from the Wikipedia:Deletion process: "if after the normal time period, there are no objections to deletion of a template, it can simply be deleted"). I hope that helps. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you, although I'm kind of smacking my head right now for not reading the TfD deletion process page better before asking all this. But the discussion I'm referring to (the Models.com one) already has a few votes (two from people who would love to flood articles with every navbox imaginable), so it's not exactly looking like one you would delete with no votes! But I put a notice on the Project's talk page so hopefully some other editors will join in.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I lost my password

Black Falcon, It's me Neptunekh. I had to sign on as Neptunekh2. I lost my password. Can you help me get it back? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you provide an e-mail address for your original account? If you did, type "Neptunekh" as your user name on the login screen and click 'E-mail new password'; you will receive a temporary password at the e-mail account you had provided. If you did not, I am afraid you may have to use a new account until/unless you remember the password for your original account. See Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password? for details. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixing my new user page

Hi Black Falcon. Could you please fix my new user page. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neptunekh2. it doesn't look right. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure ... done. You may also wish to consider redirecting User:Neptunekh and User talk:Neptunekh to your new user and user talk pages, respectively. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

• User:Vegaswikian

I'd like some help, if you wouldn't mind.

In my experience, there are few (if any) better than you at finding links on Wikipedia. (As you know from my comments in that past : )

I'm working on "trying" to write a nomination statement for Vegaswikian for bureaucratship. (As I just said to Hiding, it's that struggle between being concise, but feeling I'm not saying enough.)

What I think would help would be some great examples in his contribution history, highlighting his strengths (typically cool headed, collaborative, great at determining concensus, etc.)

If you could help, I'd greatly appreciate it. (And if this means that this turns into a co-nom, I'd be more than happy with that too - I'm gonna poke kbdank about one in a moment : ) - jc37 22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to help!

One thing about Vegaswikian that comes to mind immediately is the quality of his comments at CFD. He always explains his position, addresses issues raised in a discussion and poses relevant questions,[1] constructively engages other participants,[2] and proposes solutions.[3] In addition, it is usually clear from his comments that he doesn't rush to form an opinion (i.e. he reads the opinions of others before offering his own),[4][5], is open to changing his stance,[6][7] and closely examines nominated categories (i.e. he doesn't rely solely on what others have written but does his own research).[8]

While CFD participation is not directly comparable to the tasks of a bureaucrat, the 'work ethic' (for a lack of a better word) revealed in the former is directly relevant to the performance of the latter. Also, while the diffs above may not be the best examples of the principles I have suggested, I think it is speaking that they are all from a single day's CFD log. I will look through his contributions history in more detail for diffs that are relevant specifically to collaborating with other users, evaluating consensus, and resolving disputes. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol.

Looks like a better nomination statement than what I've got already, and yet covers quite a bit of what I was trying to say : )

Looks like I need to work on it some more.

If, while you're looking, you happen to run across the first couple times I've interacted with him, that would be great (and no, it's not necessary, just though I'd mention it in case you happened across them). - jc37 09:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You flatter me. :)

I'll see if I can find any such diffs. I've experienced extremely slow load times over the past few days—I couldn't even load the login page—but it's much better as of today. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

He's withdrawn (See his talk page.)

But now that we're thinking about those who might make a good bureaucrat... (Looks at you and smiles...) - jc37 08:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad, but I understand his reasons.

I appreciate the suggestion... :) but I don't think I'm ready just yet. I was very active at RfA (in individual RfAs and in general discussions at WT:RFA) a while ago, but I haven't visited RfA for several months. Also, I don't think I will have enough time right now to take on the additional work (I know it's all voluntary but I wouldn't feel comfortable asking for the bit if I didn't think that I could actually use it).

But, again, I do appreciate your suggestion. Perhaps you would have an interest...? I think you have significantly more experience than I with the types of technical issues that bureaucrats handle (at least as an admin you've shown more of a propensity), and I'd be happy to support your candidacy in any way. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My brain had two initial responses when I was reading that last part:

• That's pretty much the same thing Hiding said.
• Propensity? I have? How? When? (Not exactly being modest, just surprised to have this suggested to me twice recently (though I think kbdank and a few others said something previously). I guess I must be doing "something" right?

The direct answer is fairly close to yours and Vegaswikian. As I said to Hiding, the big thing they want from bureaucrats is activity, and my recent wikibreaks would likely disqualify me. (That and, as you said about yourself: I haven't been as active at RfA as I once was.)

That and in all honesty, the high percentages scare me. I daren't even hope that that many people would "vote" for me, and if they did, how embarrassed would I most definitely be? - jc37 21:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just have that impression of your editing ...that you are involved with a wide range of policy/process discussions and pages: WP:DPR, WP:ADMIN, WP:CANVAS, WP:SI, Article alerts, the village pumps, AN, AN/I, to name just a few pages that I watchlist but generally don't edit (I really have too many such pages on my watchlist...). My editing in project-space, on the other hand, is limited mostly to deletion discussions and the WikiProjects in which I participate; I've always wanted to expand into other areas but generally did not have the time. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I shall be opening a DRV on both the wrangler categories as soon as I work out how to do it. Occuli (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Open at DRV. Occuli (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Which talk page?

So who's talk page do we use for a central discussion? Did you not realize that these had been dealt with and some had been undeleted? The backlog for these had been resolved. The userboxes had been modified and that was later realized (hence why at the time the categories were very low in numbers). Shesh. Tothwolf (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(...and I keep having to remind myself WP:NAM, but the bot-like rapid fire edits are not a nice thing to see flow in unexpectedly.)

I don't understand what you mean by "these had been dealt with and some had been undeleted". There was consensus in the December 2008 discussion to upmerge these categories and the outcome should not have been reversed without some kind of prior discussion. If you would like to contest the outcome of the discussion, which was to upmerge the categories, I would suggest contacting the editor who closed the discussion (User:MZMcBride in this case). Depending on how the circumstances have changed, he may agree to overturn the outcome of the December discussion, reopen the categories for discussion, or direct you toward deletion review. (By the way, I did not see any mention of low numbers anywhere in the discussion, so I am not clear on how that is relevant to the decision to keep or delete.) I hope that helps to explain my edit. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, we'll get it sorted out. The timing and rapid fire editing that started rolling in just came as a huge surprise because the userboxes connected with these categories were just fixed/repaired. What had happened is the categories had been mistakenly removed from several of these userboxes (so the categories were nearly empty at the time of the original CFD) and some of the categories had already been deleted (and have since been undeleted). I just finished sorting out 4 of them the other day. The mIRC category in particular normally had almost 150 users in it but at the time of the CFD it was down to less than a dozen after the userbox was modified. (Now, I'm really going for my walk now...) Tothwolf (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Well, I wasn't involved with or aware of the automated removal of the categories and, as for my revert to the UCFD working page... well, I just happened to spot it in my watchlist at that particular moment. No harm done, I hope, and I hope you will be able to sort it out with MZMcBride. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged ‎MBisanz‎ and let him know what was going on as well since he was the one helping me with the XChat category the other day. I'm hesitant to bother MZMcBride right now too due to the ARB mess thats going on.
I'm thinking it may also not be a good idea to rush though this type of backlog with automated tools as I'm finding other categories with the same problem. A lot of the web browser categories had their userboxes modified to remove the category code as well and currently have very few users in them. This is a rather large mess. Tothwolf (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made a note about the ongoing discussions about the IRC categories at the UCFD working page so that anyone working on the backlog there will be aware of the situation. I have also pinged the original nominator of the categories, VegaDark. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was considering doing the same thing but hadn't quite made it over there yet today. I guess you can see how the discussion got rather scattered and why it was getting hard to keep track of. VegaDark probably hadn't noticed that the category code was missing from the userboxes so at the time of the CfD merger proposal it was probably a sensible thing to consider. The categories certainly have a lot more pages in them now though :) Tothwolf (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the userbox code was messed up at the time of nomination, but I also don't feel that has any bearing on the logic behind my nomination or the reasons for deletion. The categories could have had a thousand users in it and the logic wouldn't have changed. Thus, if you wish this category to be restored, I'd suggest you take it to DRV. VegaDark (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then this is getting into WP:POINT. Are you planning to make a fuss over all the other "Wikipedians ..." categories as well? Personally, I think this has already caused enough disruption and distraction from the ultimate goal which is to improve Wikipedia. Tothwolf (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf, please remain civil. There is no disruption here and maintenance (i.e. deletion, merging, renaming, splitting) of user categories is the standard function of the User categories for discussion process. Discussion took place and an outcome was reached, and there are established ways to contest that outcome—namely, first contact the closing admin and then, if no resolution can be reached, initiate a deletion review. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) Black Falcon, no worries, I intend to remain civil. VegaDark already implied that this was a personal bias so I don't see how this is currently a maintenance thing now at all. I also have a hard time seeing how that isn't a disruption considering the fact I spent the better part of a day figuring out what had happened and designing/implementing new markup/code to fix it (check the edit histories on the 4 categories and 4 templates). I think I did a pretty good job of cleaning the mess up and I can't help it that there was a 3+ month old backlog that hadn't been dealt with (and why was the CFD itself open longer than normally allowed for anyway?). Had these already been deleted, as with the XChat category, I'd have just recreated them or requested undeletion. I don't see how deleting and then spending time dealing with a DRV and then undeletion (not to mention all the extra code changes and server load required for this) helps improve this in any way.
I'm just hesitant to get MZMcBride involved because he already has enough mess to deal with re the ARB stuff. If you feel like pinging him, please do, I just wanted to avoid stirring up anything extra for him to have to deal with. Tothwolf (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that VegaDark implied a "personal bias". He merely indicated that he did not consider the population of the category to have "any bearing on the logic behind [his] nomination or the reasons for deletion".

While I can understand your frustration at finding out about the UCFD discussion only after you had spent substantial time on editing the templates, it does not change the fact of the discussion and its outcome. You are right that the backlog should have been dealt with much sooner—and perhaps that would have helped to avoid this situation entirely—but unfortunately no bot currently handles the UCFD working page and it is prone to such backlogs. I will try to rectify that situation semi-manually today (I'll skip the two IRC categories).

I see your point about involving MZMcBride, but I think it's worth at least notifying him. He can decide whether he has time to deal with the matter. I've left him a note. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up re the backlog...these aren't the only "Wikipedians ..." categories that had their userbox code tampered with that were then sent to CFD. I've noticed several more in the web browsers subcategory and I haven't yet checked them all. Tothwolf (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are interpreting this as personal at all. I've nominated hundreds of categories for deletion (or merging, in this case) and this really isn't different from any other. I have no idea what happened regarding population of some categories due to a template screwing up, and I don't think it is applicable at all. The only categories in question here are the two IRC categories which were legitimately deleted in a XfD, and the only way to overturn that is through DRV. The fact that a template that contributed to a significant number of people in the category wasn't functioning properly has absolutely no bearing on anything mentioned in the UCFD discussion. The fact that more people than originally thought should have been in the category does not change the rationale that knowing who uses a particular IRC client vs. another IRC client is not beneficial towards collaborating on Wikipedia. Note that any and all action taken by me regarding these categories was well before you "took the better part of a day figuring out what had happened" - In fact, I think my nomination was before the template had been malfunctioning, making whatever argument you had towards keeping these moot. If you are referring the the categories I deleted as C1 (empty), I'm not referring to those at all. As they are now populated, they were properly restored without needing a DRV. I'm only saying that the two IRC categories should remain deleted without a DRV overturning the decision. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There were originally more than two IRC categories but the others had already been CSD-C1 because their userboxes had been modified to remove the category code. (yes, as you mentioned, you did indeed delete some of those categories)
"In fact, I think my nomination was before the template had been malfunctioning, making whatever argument you had towards keeping these moot."
Wrong:
{{User:UBX/mirc}} – Category code missing as of revision 167523917 on 2007-10-27 [9]
Category:Wikipedians who use mIRC – Category nominated for CFD as of revision 259256387 on 2008-12-21 [10]
{{Template:User IRC}} – Category code missing as of revision 167523493 on 2007-10-27 [11]
...
"The fact that more people than originally thought should have been in the category does not change the rationale that knowing who uses a particular IRC client vs. another IRC client is not beneficial towards collaborating on Wikipedia."
Ok then, let's revisit the discussion since you brought it up [12] I see two commenters, you and one other person. Best I can tell neither of you have been involved in working on the IRC articles or categories so I don't think your argument about "IRC client vs. another IRC client" is valid.
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to make your case at DRV. VegaDark (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what MZMcBride suggests or wants to do first. Tothwolf (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, because I think there could have been a misunderstanding in the wording above, by "personal bias", I meant bias against having these separate categories for IRC clients.
IMO, Category:Wikipedians who use IRC is for generic "This uses uses IRC", and Category:Wikipedians who use mIRC is for users who wish to express that they use the mIRC software. Trying to lump all these together would be like trying to lump all the Mozilla, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc categories into Category:Wikipedians who use a web browser.
You are probably well aware that many people are very polarized when it comes to web browsers. In my experience, the exact same thing is true when it comes to IRC clients.
--Tothwolf (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who use IRC is for generic "This uses uses IRC", and Category:Wikipedians who use mIRC is for users who wish to express that they use the mIRC software. - Agreed, I don't think there is any question regarding that. The issue is that there is no encyclopedia-benefiting purpose for distinguishing users who use mIRC vs. those who simply using IRC in general via a category. Trying to lump all these together would be like trying to lump all the Mozilla, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc categories into Category:Wikipedians who use a web browser - Not necessarily. Everyone who uses Wikipedia uses some sort of web browser, so such a category would be all-inclusive. All-inclusive categories are regularly deleted as not fostering collaboration. Not everyone uses IRC, so that rationale wouldn't apply for deleting a "Wikipedians who use IRC" category. Basically, the purpose of having user categories is so other users can seek out people for some enyclopedic purpose. The only possible encyclopedic use for knowing who uses mIRC vs. those who use IRC in general would be for users to collaborate on the mIRC article. We have time and time again deleted that type of category for being too narrow for collaboration-That is, a category for such users is unnecessary, as the talk page of the article is sufficient. A "Wikipedians who use IRC" category can be useful as it is a lot faster and easier to communicate with people real-time to discuss things, so seeking out such users would have an encyclopedic benefit. A "Wikipedians who use mIRC" category would be dupicative of this goal, other than to distinguish the particular client, which is irrelevant for the encyclopedic use of this category. Thus, I nominated the IRC client-specific categories for merging, and the result was to merge. The XfD had unanimous support and was open far longer than the required 5 days, so I don't see how he could have closed it any other way. If you wish to discuss this further, no need to keep giving Black Falcon the new messages bar. I'll save any further comments on this to the seemingly inevitable DRV, where I will likely have to repeat everything said above, and where I definitely don't expect a reversal of the close. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to be more that you just don't realize the differences between different IRC clients and that is something I can help explain. It is indeed useful for Wikipedians who use one client to be able to seek advice from someone who uses the same client. Commands and features vary significantly between clients and different clients do not use the same scripts. See Wikipedia:IRC and Wikipedia:Scripts.
(Sorry, Black Falcon...)
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries... :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(break)
In case anyone was following this discussion here, it has picked back up on my talk page here. Tothwolf (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Re: The Holocaust. Sorry to hassle you, but thanks for discussing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all! I appreciate that you spotted my mistake and followed through on your question, since otherwise I doubt that I would have noticed the problem and may have even gone on to do a mass nom of other Holocaust categories. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sean Kennedy (Author) is back!!!...

...and up for deletion again that quickly by the same person as last time, and wrongly sites WP:N. May I request your advice as I do not believe she is correct. Sean has very much evidence of notability, as per the current deletion review. Thank you for your time.

CelticWonder (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC) edited by CelticWonder (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC) to pander to User:Victoriagirl's "grasping at straws" accusation of canvassing.

I have commented at the deletion review. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Poke

(For no "apparent" reason : ) - jc37 03:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You caught me; I confess to everything! Umm.... what did I do? :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, that's a pretty bad response time : p - jc37 06:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. 12 words in 37 minutes does seem quite slow, doesn't it... : )

I've only been able to make a handful of edits today even though I've been in front of my computer and logged in practically the whole day. My phone has been ringing so much today that I'm starting to hear phantom rings when I leave the room. I'll start worrying when I begin hearing voices... –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rofl. Sorry just in the mood. Blame Hiding and April 1st.

And I kinda guessed. You haven't done some of the things you probably would have had you been at your comp for a longer period, I'm sure.

That'll be me tomorrow, probably... - jc37 06:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A little bit of fun never hurt anyone, right? (Hmm, famous last words.) :P

I read the thread on Hiding's talk page, and I look foward to seeing the following in the deletion log on 1 April 2010:

"01:42, April 1, 2010 Hiding (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:Jimbo Wales" ‎ (forgot to implement the result of the MfD from several months ago) (view/restore)"

; ) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

lol, if so, I think I have a DRV to file : )

I have to say though, his initial response to me had me laughing so hard. Totally caught me off guard. - jc37 07:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To be sure, it was a smooth turn-around. In fact, I'm tempted to take a peek into his archives... –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that came across as rather creepy, didn't it? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, not sure I even understood the archives ref, and second, not unless you meant it as some sort of innuendo. lol

I meant that I was tempted to search his talk page archives for more interesting threads. On the second point, no I didn't, though I realized once I re-read my comment that it could come across as a bit stalker-ish. It brought this image to my mind. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent) Lol. I don't think there's a reason to be concerned. Hiding isn't Pearl White after all : )

And yes, Hiding is rather quick witted : )

We once had a discussion on my talk page that in hindsight was kind of impressive. See also: this. (You'll have to scroll down to the section "context"...) - jc37 08:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot about listing it at Wikipedia:Talk page highlights. Had to go fix the links there : ) - jc37 08:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Signing out for now, have a good one : )

A profound effect did you effect on me! So effectively did your affectations affect my affective state that they would have effected labile affect had not their complexity partly blunted my affect (pardon any errors, I am no student of affect). But not to worry, I am not blunted in affect and could not help but be affected by the effect you sought to effect—all that was missing was a special effect. I hope I have effected on your affect a positive effect, and now if you'll excuse me, I must add aspirin (or Aspirin, lest I effect a legal effect) to my personal effects. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Psychic claimants

I thought you might want to know about this discussion. I hope it works out. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I do, thank you. I will comment at the discussion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List of films that often used the word fuck

Dear Editor, during talk page discussions, you requested at one point to be notified when this article was up for deletion again. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (9th nomination). Best regards, hoping you can supply some input, --Reinoutr (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your offer of help. I will have to rewrite the edits as I typed them directly into the edit block and it somehow got deleted. I will do them again and get back to you. Once again than you for your offer.

Crowebobby

I have no idea what the "sign your posts with four tildes (Crowebobby (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC))means.

Request for comment

Hi Black Falcon. Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at "WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to are small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 07:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for René Olry

On May 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article René Olry, 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) 09:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Navboxes

This editor thinks it is correct because the WT:Canada says they have the right to violate wikipedia's standard in whole because of some unique concensus to implement decorative navboxs, which I tried to do on the US ones and will not deny it, and got called out and they got changed to the same communal standard. I think the canadian ones should have to be submissive to the wikipedia standard like I was with the U.S. ones user:roux! _BLuE^DOgTn 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)